Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

London Midland and Scottish Railway Order Confirmation Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday next, at half-past Seven of the clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFER- ENCE (WORKING WEEK).

Mr. LINDSAY: 1.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he will circulate, for the information of Members, a copy of the report on the subject of a 40-hour week in industry and commerce, adopted at the recent International Labour Conference?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Henry Betterton): I am making arrangements for the circulation of this report as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. TOM SMITH: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour what countries voted against the proposal brought forward at the recent International Labour Conference at Geneva to place the question of the reduction of hours of work on the agenda of the next session of the Conference?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I presume that the hon. Member refers to the votes of Government delegates. According to the "Provisional Record" of the Conference the only Government delegate who voted against this proposal was the delegate of Portugal.

Mr. PIKE: What percentage of the wage earners of those countries supporting the proposal were represented?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I cannot say.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. LAWSON: 2.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the complaints made as to the attendances of appointed persons on courts of referees and the fact that the absence of referees sometimes causes considerable inconvenience to the person appearing before the court, he will take steps to secure regularity of attendance by members of these courts?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Every effort is already made to secure regular attendance, and I have reason to think that there has been considerable improvement in recent years. I shall be glad to hear from the hon. Member if he has any particular area in mind.

EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES (TEMPORARY CLERKS).

Mr. T, SMITH: 3.
asked the Minister of Labour haw many temporary clerks are now employed in the Employment Exchanges throughout the country and the number so employed on the same date in 1932?

Sir H. BETTERTON: There were 10,469 temporary clerks employed in Employment Exchanges on the 26th June, 1933, as compared with 12,508 on the corresponding date last year.

SCOTLAND.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 5.
asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed are in Scotland; what is the number on transitional payment; and how many have been disqualified from transitional payment and are now receiving aid from the public assistance authorities?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 26th June, 1933, there were 344,159 unemployed persons on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Scotland, including 164,691 with claims authorised for transitional payments. I regret that statistics are not available showing the numbers in receipt of relief from public assistance authorities whose applications for transitional payments have been disallowed by courts of referees.

KIELDER TRAINING CENTRE.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: 6.
asked the Minister of Labour when it is proposed to open the Kielder training camp?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The necessary accommodation and equipment are being provided as quickly as possible, and it expected that trainees will be in residence at the Kielder Centre by the 24th August.

AGRICULTURAL WORKERS.

Mr. T. SMITH: 7.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he has considered the communication recently sent to him from the National Union of Agricultural Workers with regard to the position of Agricultural workers and Unemployment Insurance; and will he state the nature of any reply that has been sent to them?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have had a letter from the National Union of Agricultural Workers in which they ask me to receive a deputation on this subject. I hope to be able to receive this deputation within the next two or three weeks, and am writing to the National Union to this effect.

Mr. THORNE: Will this be one of the questions that the Cabinet will consider between now and the publication of the Unemployment Insurance Bill next year?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is one of the questions which will be considered.

MINERS.

Mr. DUNCAN GRAHAM: 8.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners unemployed at the latest available date?

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 26th June, 1933, the number of insured persons in the coal mining industry classification recorded as unemployed in Great Britain was 384,589, of whom 233,601 were wholly unemployed and 150,988 were temporarily stopped.

Mr. BATEY: Is that an increase or a decrease?

Sir H. BETTERTON: There is a very considerable decrease. It is a decrease as compared with a year ago, of no fewer than 40,415 and, as compared with a month ago, of no fewer than 11,097.

Mr. LAWSON: Is it not a fact that there is a considerable increase in. the wholly unemployed?

Sir H. BETTERTON: With regard to the wholly unemployed, it is a decrease also, as compared with a month ago, of
1,175. As compared with a year ago, it is an increase of 13,324.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: is it not an actual fact that there are fewer miners working at the mines to-day than there were 12 months since?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I should like notice, if I am asked to give actual figures, because I have not got them, but probably what the hon. Member says is true. I do not dispute it.

Mr. LAWSON: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of miners wholly unemployed in the county of Durham at the latest date

Sir H. BETTERTON: At 26th June, 1933, the number of insured persons in the coal-mining industry classification recorded as wholly unemployed in the county of Durham was 44,424.

Mr. BATEY: Is that an increase or a decrease?

Sir H. BETTERTON: It is a decrease, as compared with a year ago, of 3,375 and, as compared with a month ago, of 4,064.

Mr. LAWSON: Is that a decrease of 4,000 wholly unemployed?

Mr. SMITHERS: Is it not a. fact that these numbers could be considerably reduced if Part I of the Coal Mines Act were repealed?

Mr. LAWSON: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has answered my question, which was whether he could state the number of men wholly unemployed in the county of Durham at the latest date.

Sir H. BETTERTON: The number of miners wholly unemployed in the county of Durham at the latest date was, as I have already answered, 44,424.

Mr. BATEY: Is that an increase or a decrease?

HON., MEMBERS: Order

Sir H. BETTERTON: I think, if I may say so, the lion. Member is justified in asking that question. The figures show that in the total there is a decrease of 3,375, as compared with a year ago, and of 4,064, as compared with a month ago. Now the hon. Member asks me to separate these into temporarily stopped and wholly unemployed. With regard to the tem-
porarily stopped, it shows a decrease of 3,560, as compared with a month ago, and of 2,581, as compared with a year ago. With regard to the wholly unemployed, it shows a decrease of 504, as compared with a month ago, and of 794, as compared with a year ago.

TRANSITIONAL PAYMENT.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 10.
asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of initial applications and review

Determinations on applications for transitional payments submitted to the Rother Valley and Don Valley Public Assistance authorities.


—
Initial Applications.
Renewals and Revisions.


Men.
Women.
Men.
Women.


*25.1.32 to 4.6.32.
6.2.33 to 3.6.33.
*25.1.32 to 4.6.32.
6.2.33 to 3.6.33.
*25.1.32 to 4.6.32.
6.2.33 to 4.6.32.
*25.1.32 to 4.6.32.
6.2.33 to 3.6.33.



Rother Valley.


Total Determination
1,305
974
54
31
11,801
8,157
213
73


Allowed at less than maximum benefit rates
58
279
10
11
1,207
2,847
80
30


Needs of applicants held not to justify payments
34
161
7
9
92
682
14
20



Don Valley.


Total Determinations
2,439
1,677
124
85
15,514
12,764
567
231


Allowed at les than maximum benefit rates.
316
355
19
17
3,350
3,664
129
60


Needs of applicants held not to justify
78
171
6
21
76
825
14
52


*Separate particulars of the determinations on initial applications and on renewals and revisions are available only from 25th January, 1932.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 11.
asked the Minister of Labour the present position in the West Riding (Yorks) with regard to the administration of transitional payments; whether the full committee are serving; and, if not, will he state which section, if any, has declined to administer the present scales?

Sir H. BETTERTON: The matters to which the hon. Member refers are within the province of the local authority. I have no reason to believe that the necessary arrangements for the administration of transitional payments are not being made.

cases for transitional payments in the Rother Valley and the Don Valley districts for the first half of 1932 and the same period in 1933, respectively; the number who received less than the full payment; and the number whose circumstances warranted no payment at all?

Sir H. BETTERTON: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate a statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that one section of the public assistance committee in the West Riding area is refusing to administer the scales which he has superimposed upon them? May I ask whether, as the right hon. Gentleman takes steps to suppress public assistance committees where he thinks they may be too generous, he will pay the same sort of attention to public assistance committees whose scale is an atrocity?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no official information with regard to the guardians committees, which are responsible to the
main committee and not to me. As far as I know the main committee is carrying out its duties according to law. I have no information whether the guardians committees contemplate throwing in their hand, or have actually done so.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the public assistance committee is carrying out its duties according to the law as interpreted by the right hon. Gentleman and the Minister of Health, and, as it is inflicting great hardship on all sorts of people, will he now examine the result of its work?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no reason to believe that the statement made by the hon. Member can be substantiated in any way.

Mr. MACLEAN: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that where an unemployed man on the means test finds employment for a week or two the wages he earns for this period are taken into account and his transitional payments are reduced by the amount his wages have exceeded his transitional payments; and whether, as this tends to discourage men from finding employment, he will take steps to alter this practice, so that the employed man and his family can enjoy the full amount of the wages earned?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no knowledge of the cases which the hon. Member may have in mind, but I have no reason to believe that authorities do not Lilly appreciate the importance of not discouraging men from finding employment. I would point out that the matter is one within the discretion of the local authorities and not one in which I have any power to issue instructions.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that action such as is described in the question is not being taken upon the instructions of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but really upon the initiative of the particular public assistance committee which is operating the transitional payment?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I have no authority whatever to give directions to local authorities.

Mr. BUCHANAN: If the Glasgow Town Council does not carry out this
practice will not the Minister interfere with them in any way? Will he allow the corporation to do what they like in this matter without interference?

Sir H. BETTERTON: That is the same thing over again. I have no authority over local authorities and no power to interfere.

Mr. MACLEAN: Are we to take it that if a local public assistance committee recognise the right of individuals, when they have obtained employment, to enjoy the full earnings that they receive, the Minister will not interfere and insist upon this practice being discontinued?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I would like to see that question on the Paper so that I may know exactly what the hon. Member means. What I have told him is accurate. I have no power to give directions. If the hon. Member wishes further expression of opinion, I shall be glad if he will put a question down.

HEALTH INSURANCE BENEFIT.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 23.
asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to preserve the right of medical benefit to a group of persons suffering from prolonged unemployment whose right to benefit will otherwise cease at December, 1933?

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): No, Sir. As I have said in reply to previous questions, this matter was fully debated during the passage of the National Health Insurance Act of last year, and the Government are not prepared to reopen it.

Mr. THORNE: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire from the various approved societies the number of people who will be affected?

Sir H. YOUNG: No special inquiries are necessary, but I am in close touch with the situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PAID HOLIDAYS.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: 4.
asked the Minister of Labour how many trades in Scotland have agreements giving the workers holidays with pay; how many trades have
no such agreements; and will he consider the introduction of legislation giving all workers 14 days' annual holiday, plus statutory holidays, with pay, in the same way as is done with Government employés?

Sir H. BETTERTON: An article giving particulars of the industries in which general or district agreements were known to exist, containing provision for paid holidays, was published on pages 242–243 of the issue of the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for July, 1932, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member. It is not proposed to introduce legislation on this subject.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Arising out of that part of his reply in which the Minister said that he did not propose to introduce legislation, I want to ask him why?

Sir H. BETTERTON: I welcome these arrangements, and I hope they will increase, but I should not feel justified in attempting to force them on any particular industry. The arrangements are much better made voluntarily.

Mr. LOUIS SMITH: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that this sort of concession cannot be given unless the industries are making a profit?

Sir H. BETTERTON: Yes, no doubt that is so.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that the first interest should be not profit, but the health and happiness of the people of Great Britain?

Mr. THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a very large number of firms who are making big profits give no holidays at all?

AUSTRALIA (IMPORT DUTIES).

Mr. PERKINS: 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he has made any representations to the Government of Australia in respect of the recent increase of their tariff against British manufactured goods; and, if so, what is the result?

The SECRETARY of STATE for DOMINION AFFAIRS (Mr. J. H. Thomas): The recent increases in the duties levied in Australia upon certain classes of goods, five in number, imported
from the United Kingdom were, I gather, made in accordance with reports by the Tariff Board, and I assume that the board was guided by the principles laid down in Article 10 of the Agreement between His Ma sty's Government in the United Kingdom and His Majesty's Government in the Commonwealth of Australia, concluded at Ottawa. I shall, however, be happy to consider any specific representations in the matter which may be made by the United Kingdom industries concerned.

Mr. PERKINS: Has the right hon. Gentleman made any representations to the Australian Government about this matter?

Mr. THOMAS: I have already said that I expect the particular trades to consult me.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: Do the Australian Government advise the British Government of any proposed advances in duties before they are imposed?

Mr. THOMAS: No, there is no provision for that. We do not advise any foreign or Dominion Government of any particular action that is determined by the Board.

Sir P. HARRIS: Is it not the fact that we do not impose any extra duties on Dominion goods, and therefore it is not necessary to advise them?

Mr. THOMAS: And that is why it is not necessary for the Government to interfere with what, after all, is the duty of the Board themselves.

FRANCE (INCREASED IMPORT DUTIES).

Captain P. MACDONALD: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what is the approximate annual value of British import trade into France which is affected by the Bill which has just been passed by the French Chamber and which increases the duties on a large range of British exports to France by from 30 to 150 per cent.?

Lieut.-Colonel J. COLVILLE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): I regret that the particulars given in the Official Trade Returns both of France and of this country are not sufficiently detailed to enable an estimate to be formed of the amount of our trade affected by the Bill, but I should explain
that the increases in question affect all countries to which the French minimum tariff applies and that the goods concerned are in fact mainly goods in which the predominant interest is not that of this country.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the hon. and gallant Member satisfied that this is not a contravention of the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause in our trade agreement; and, also, may I ask whether it is not a contravention of the Tariff Truce entered into by the French Government during the term of the Economic Conference?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: As at present advised, I think it is not, but I should require to have notice of the question.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: In view of the fact that this Bill has only just been passed in the French Parliament, is it not obvious that it is a breach of the Tariff Truce?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: It may have been initiated some time ago; but I should require notice if I am to investigate the matter thoroughly.

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that this Bill has been rushed through the French Parliament during the last few days, and is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that this increase in tariffs is going to hit our trades and that it has been imposed because we will not join the gold bloc?

TRADE AGREEMENTS (SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES).

Captain WATT: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is now in a position to make any statement as to the effects on British export trade of the recent agreements with the Scandinavian countries?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The Danish Agreement only came into force on 20th June and the Norwegian and Swedish Agreements on 7th July. It would therefore be premature to attempt to assess their effects.

TEXTILE INDUSTRY.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 42.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is at present considering any further trade
agreements the proposals for which specially affect cotton textiles?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The negotiations with Argentina and Finland, now proceeding, affect cotton textiles.

Mr. SUTCLIFFE: 50.
asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department if he will obtain a special report as to the market for British textiles in the territories of Manchuria and Eastern Mongolia?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: Yes, Sir. I am giving instructions for the preparation of such a report.

NEW FACTORIES.

Mr. CAPORN: 43.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many of the 646 new factories established in this country during the year 1932 were commenced while the abnormal import duties were in force; and how many of the 355 factories closed during the same year were closed after such duties were withdrawn?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I regret that the desired information is not available.

Mr. CAPORN: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the closing of the 355 factories has anything to do with the tariff?

Dr. BURGIN: I could not say without a good deal of research. This survey is very full, and it has been made for the whole year and not for separate months. I doubt whether the information for which the hon. Member asks is available, but I will look into it.

Captain P. MACDONALD: Is it not a fact that a large number of the closed factories have only shifted their operations from one part of the country to another?

Dr. BURGIN: That appears from the survey itself.

Mr. CAPORN: Is it possible to give us any information as to when the establishment of these factories was first notified to the Board of Trade?

Dr. BURGIN: That might be possible but the information for which the hon. Member is asking would really involve a fresh inquiry, and the expense and time
would be quite disproportionate to the value of the information obtained.

Mr. MACLEAN: Is it not the case that there is no real comparison of the criterion as to the advantage gained by this country from the opening of these factories unless one knows the loss on the factories which have been closed down?

Dr. BURGIN: That is shown by the survey.

OVERSEAS TRADE.

Mr. CAPORN: 44.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can supply figures showing either the volume or, on a comparable costs basis, the value of articles wholly or mainly manufactured, excluding iron and steel and manufactures thereof and coke and manufactured fuel, imported into this country during the four months ended 30th April in each of the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

Dr. BURGIN: Estimates of the volume of our overseas trade, eliminating the effect of price changes, are made in respect of quarterly periods only. For the first quarter of each of the years 1931 to 1933, the relative volume of imports of articles wholly or mainly manufactured (excluding iron and steel and manufactures thereof, and coke and manufactured fuel) was 100, 78 and 68, respectively.

BALANCE OF TRADE.

Mr. CAPORN: 45.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he can supply any information or estimate of the balance of trade and of payments between this country and the rest of the world for the first four months in each of the years 1931, 1932 and 1933?

Dr. BURGIN: The excess of imports over exports of merchandise in the trade of the United Kingdom during the first four months of 1931, 1932 and 1933, was £120,000,000, £99,100,000 and £77,800,000, respectively. It is not practicable to furnish an estimate of the invisible items entering into the balance of payments, for periods other than a calendar year.

RUSSIA.

Mr. SMITHERS: 46.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in making arrangements for a new trade agreement with the Soviet Government, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government not to grant any further credits
while Russia has a favourable trade balance with this country?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: My hon. Friend will appreciate that while negotiations for a new trade agreement are proceeding it is not possible to make any statement on the subject.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask what possible justification there can be to give credits to a country that has a favourable trade balance?

Lieut.-Colonel COLVILLE: The hon. Member must not expect me to say anything more during the progress of negotiations. I will remind him that the question of the trade balance with Russia has been very prominently before His Majesty's Government, and, in point of fact, last year it improved very greatly from any previous year.

Mr. SMITHERS: Will the Government take note of the fundamental axioms of ordinary business?

Mr. THORNE: Is it not a fact that the Argentine balance is worse than the Russian balance?

POLICE FORCES (AMALGAMATION).

Major MILLS: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many boroughs or county boroughs there are in England and Wales with a population of 50,000 or under which have separate police forces; what is the total cost of those forces; and what is the amount per annum which would be saved if those forces were amalgamated with their neighbouring county forces?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Douglas Hacking): Forty-five boroughs, including two county boroughs, in England and Wales of population under 50,000 have separate police forces, and their total net police expenditure in 1930–31 was £598,000. Any estimate of the saving to police funds if those forces were merged with the county forces can only be tentative, as it would depend in each case on the extent of the reorganisation that became possible on amalgamation. On the basis, however, of the tentative estimate framed by the Home Department for the use of the recent Select Committee this House, the saving would be approximately £60,000
a year if all the forty-five forces were merged with the respective county forces Half of the saving would accrue to the Exchequer and half to local rates.

Major MILLS: May I ask my right. hon. Friend if he will consider the advantage of getting from the chief constables of the neighbouring county forces detailed estimates of what economies could be effected by such amalgamations?

Mr. HACKING: It would be very difficult to get detailed estimates from them, because it is impossible to say what the details of the organisation would be. The Home Office is trying to get the best estimate they can, but it is rather difficult.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in many boroughs an amalgamation of police forces would cause an increase of rates and would be strongly opposed?

Mr. HACKING: No, I am not aware of that fact.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

QUOTA SYSTEM.

Mr. SMITHERS: 51.
asked the Secretary for Mines what was the amount of quota allocated to the country and to the districts for the last period of 12 months

STATEMENT of total allocations and outputs, district by district, and for Great Britain as a whole, for the year ended 31st March, 1933, the latest period of twelve months for which figures are available.


District.
Allocation.
Output as returned by the Executive Boards to the Central Council.
Excess (+) or Deficiency (-).





Tons.
Tons.
Tons.


Midland (Amalgamated)
…
…
71,808,825
67,585,149
- 4,223,676


South Wales
…
…
40,513,934
36,476,665
- 4,037,269


Scotland
…
…
30,511,364
29,065,372
- 1,445,992


Durham
…
…
31,384,494
28,657,828
- 2,726,666


Northumberland
…
…
13,308,967
12,726,838
- 582,129


Lancashire and Cheshire
…
…
14,320,798
13,517,272
- 803,526


North Staffs.
…
…
5,721,979
5,759,503
+ 37,524


Warwick
…
…
4,826,248
4,760,740
- 65,508


Cannock Chase
…
…
4,820,438
4,632,300
- 188,138


North Wales
…
…
3,210,281
2,982,746
- 227,535


Cumberland
…
…
1,968,188
1,665,306
- 302,882


South Staffs.
…
…
1,520,000
1,457,079
- 62,921


Kent
…
…
2,013,400
2,017,182
+ 3,782


Forest of Dean
…
…
1,124,365
1,056,681
- 67,684


Somerset
…
…
784,322
726,256
- 58,066


Shropshire
…
…
654,500
644,855
- 9,645


Bristol
…
…
187,813
167,055
- 20,758


GREAT BRITAIN
…
…
228,679,916
213,898,827
- 14,781,089

for which figures are available; and how much of it was unused in the country and in the districts?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Ernest Brown): As the reply involves a statistical statement, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. SMITHERS: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much of this has been used?

Mr. BROWN: Does the hon. Member mean the figures for any particular district, or for the whole country?

Mr. SMITHERS: For the country as a whole.

Mr. BROWN: The figure is 14,781,089 tons.

Mr. SMITHERS: Does it not show that it is absurd that the Central Board should proceed to allocate certain tonnage, if the country are not allowed to use that tonnage even when they want more?

Mr. BROWN: If my hon. Friend would analyse the 17 sets of tables and the totals, he will find that there are great variations in all the districts.

Mr. SMITHERS: Had not my hon. Friend better repeal Part I of the Act?

Following is the statement:

MINES (TEMPERATURE).

Mr. TINKER: 16.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the condition of coal miners who, through working in hot mines, are subject to boils and carbuncles, which in many cases causes incapacity and loss of work; and will he inquire into it to see if there is sufficient evidence to include this in the schedule of diseases under the Workmen's Compensation Acts?

Mr. HACKING: My right hon. Friend has not yet had occasion to consider this question, but he will consult my hon. Friend the Secretary for Mines in the matter.

EXPORTS (GERMANY).

Captain WATT: 52.
asked the Secretary for Mines if he is now in a position to make any statement as to the effects on British export trade of the recent German agreement?

Mr. E. BROWN: The agreement with Germany took effect only on 8th May last, and complete trade figures are not yet available to reflect its results.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

APPOINTMENTS, SOUTH WALES.

Mr. TEMPLE MORRIS: 17.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether his intention has been called to the charges made regarding alleged payments by candidates for school appointments in South Wales; and if he will cause an inquiry to be made into these allegations?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Ramsbotham): My Noble Friend has no information as to the alleged payments by candidates for school appointments in South Wales beyond the references which have appeared in the public Press. He is confident that any local education authorities in whose areas these allegations are made will make searching inquiries, and he understands that one authority has already initiated an inquiry; but there is nothing before him that would justify intervention on his part at present.

Mr. MORRIS: 19.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been
called to the allegations made at a meeting of the Monmouthshire Education Committee that members of the Monmouthshire County Council have received money in bribes; and if he will take steps to order an inquiry into the matter?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have read with concern allegations made in connection with the work of the Monmouthshire County Council. A special committee has been appointed by the Education Committee to investigate the allegations in that sphere, and I hope that in the public interest they will press forward with their task and make an early report. I will then decide what action it is necessary for me to take, in consultation, of course, with my Noble Friend so far as the education work is concerned.

STAFFING.

Captain SPENCER: 18.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the number of local education authorities to which his Department has suggested an increase or a decrease, respectively, in their establishment of teachers?

Mr. RAMSBDTHAM: Up to the 30th June the Board of Education have dealt with the proposed establishments for 1933–34 of 169 local education authorities. In the case of 32 of these authorities the board have suggested or approved establishments larger than those approved for 1932–33; in 108 cases they have suggested or approved decreases, and in 29 cases there is no change as compared with 1932–33.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

CONSTRUCTION (FLUES).

Sir ADRIAN BAILLIE: 24.
asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the erection by local authorities of private dwelling-houses, either without flues or with a type of flue that precludes the use of coal or other solid fuel; and whether he will take steps to prevent the further construction of houses on lines which limit ventilation and restrict the tenants' choice of fuel?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have received certain representations to the effect suggested in the first part of the question.
I am not generally prepared to approve of the erection by local authorities of houses in which a coal fire cannot be used in at least one room.

Sir A. BAILLIE: May I ask what steps the right hon. Gentleman has taken or proposes to take to see that the local authorities comply with the requirements in this respect?

Sir H. YOUNG: Plans would not be passed unless they were in accordance with the requirements.

FINANCIAL PROVISIONS ACT.

Mr. LAWSON: 22.
(for Mr. HICKS) asked the Minister of Health the number of cases in which guarantees have been given under the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, with respect to each area; and the total number of houses?

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is aware that this Act was only placed on the Statute Book about two months ago. Approval has so far been given to the guarantee, by one local authority, of 250 houses.

FLOODING, LITHERLAND.

Mr. LOGAN: 29.
asked the Minister of Health if his attention has been called to the death, on 22nd June, 1933, of Mr. Horace Sheridan Freeman, of 10, Hand-field Road, Waterloo, who was drowned through a rushing flood in Akenside Street, Litherland; what action, if any, has been taken to deal with this death trap; and is the Minister prepared to hold a public inquiry?

Sir H. YOUNG: I have ascertained that the local authorities concerned with the area in question are trying to find a remedy for flooding. I do not think there would be advantage in a public inquiry.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that seven or eight years ago a bay, in trying to escape from a similar flood, lost his life by being electrocuted; that for 12 years, owing to the houses being badly drained, the land has been liable to flooding for two or three months; that houses are immersed to the extent of 12 feet; and that neither Litherland nor Bootle are taking any steps to deal with this matter? Is not an inquiry by the Minister requisite?

Sir H. YOUNG: I was not acquainted with some of the older circumstances to which the hon. Member referred. As regards his account of the conditions, I do not recognise them in all respects. The particular flooding in question was at a specially low-lying spot under a railway bridge. I am satisfied that the local authority are pressing their investigations as to the means of avoidance in future.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the Minister aware that most of the councillors there and most of the population of Bootle wish to place the responsibility on some authority, and that up to the moment there has been no placing of responsibility; and, as this is a death trap, does it not call for a public inquiry?

Captain BULLOCK: Is it not a fact that officials from the Ministry have been sent down to investigate conditions on the spot?

Sir H. YOUNG: The Ministry is taking the usual steps to stimulate action in the matter, and I am satisfied that the local authority are pressing the investigation. In the circumstances, I think that a public inquiry would simply delay action.

POOR LAW RELIEF.

Mr. LAWSON: 30.
asked the Minister of Health the total number of people receiving relief at the end of June?

Sir H. YOUNG: The total number of persons (men, women and children) in receipt of poor relief in England and Wales (excluding rate-aided patients in mental hospitals, persons in receipt of domiciliary medical relief only and casuals) on Saturday, the 24th June, 1933, was 1,272,058.

Mr. BATEY: Has the Minister got with him the figures of the number of those who are able-bodied?

Sir H. YOUNG: I am afraid I should want notice of that question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 31.
asked the Minister of Health the nature of the reply received from the West Riding (Yorks) public assistance committee to his recent letters regarding their scale of relief?

Sir H. YOUNG: I understand that the public assistance committee are submitting certain resolutions for consideration at the next meeting of the county council.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Do we understand that the right hon. Gentleman has received no reply to the recent correspondence, and that he is simply waiting for the next county council meeting?

Sir H. YOUNG: I do not think that deduction would be justified; obviously, I must wait for the developments in this connection.

RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. PERKINS: 32.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that the Russian bank for foreign trade has defaulted to the extent of £24,918 in respect of the enemy debts clearing office and £9,929 in respect of His Majesty's Treasury; and what steps he proposes to take with a view to recovering this money?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hore-Belisha): This bank is in liquidation and the necessary steps are being taken to protect the interests of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. SMITHERS: 54.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in making arrangements for a new trade agreement with the Soviet Government, it is the policy of His Majesty's Government to insist upon the recognition of public and private debts to this country?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply returned on 10th July to my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) to which I have nothing to add.

Mr. SMITHERS: May I ask if the occasion of these negotiations is not a very fine opportunity to insist upon the first principles of business honesty?

Mr. EDEN: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the answer to which I have referred, he will find that that is fully dealt with.

Mrs. COPELAND: Is it not time that Russia paid up her debts?

SALE OF SPIRITS (OFF-LICENCES).

Major JESSON: 33.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will state the total number of excise licences for the sale of spirits for consumption off the premises only; and how many of these possess justices' certificates?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The number of excise spirits retail off-licences issued in 1932–33 was 8,873 in England and Wales and 2,407 in Scotland. The number of spirits retail off-licences held with justices' licences in England and Wales is about 7,300. In Scotland off-licences can only be issued on justices' licences.

Major JESSON: Is my hon. Friend aware of the anomalous position created by the granting of the concession to sell half-bottles of spirits to those off-licensees who hold justices' certificates, while it is denied to the 8,000 off-licensees who possess excise certificates? Will he consider remedying that anomaly?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir. This matter was fully debated on the Finance Bill, when my right hon. Friend gave his reasons for drawing this distinction, and he informed the House that it had been made in accordance with the desire of the retail trade.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (MESSRS. BEARDMORE).

Mr. MACLEAN: 36.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he can state if any Government contracts have been obtained recently by Messrs. Beard-more for their works at Moss End; and, if so, whether any reason has been given why those works are closed down at present?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: So far as I have been able to ascertain, no Government contracts have recently been placed for the Moss End works; the second part of the question therefore does not arise.

Mrs. SHAW: Moss End works are in my constituency. May I ask my hon. Friend whether it is not the case that Beardmore's works were closed during the term of the last Government, and, in view of the heavy increase in unemployment caused thereby, will he take that into consideration in placing Government contracts?

Mr. MACLEAN: Apart from what happened in the last Government, is it not the case that this particular Government promised employment at Moss End and elsewhere?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: In reply to my hon. Friend who represents the Division concerned, Moss End works have bee closed since 1931 at least. The Government, of course, have other contracts with Messrs. Beardmore, but contracts are not placed with these particular works.

Mr. MACLEAN: What was the date in 1931 when the works were closed?

An HON. MEMBER: Before you went out of office.

Mr. MACLEAN: 55.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty when the last completed contract was given to Messrs. Beardmore and delivered; the nature and value of the contract; whether any contracts have been given recently; the nature and value of the contracts; and the number of men they are estimated to give employment to?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): The last completed contract of magnitude was for the main machinery of the Flotilla Leader "Duncan," ordered in February, 1931, and completed in March of this year. Within, the last few months, Messrs. Beardmore have received contracts for the main machinery of His Majesty's Ships "Amphion" and "Apollo," and orders for certain armament items, forgings, etc., for these and other of His Majesty's ships under construction. It would not be in the public interest to disclose the contract prices. There is no information available as to the number of men employed on Admiralty contracts.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

SCHOOL POPULATION, SKYE.

Sir MURDOCH MACDONALD: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can state the number of children on the school registers in the island of Skye in 1902 and 1932, respectively?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): The average number of children on the school
registers in the island of Skye in 1902 was 2,634: in 1932 it was 1,680.

ILLEGAL TRAWLING, PORTREE.

Sir M. MACDONALD: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will cause proceedings to be taken against the owners of the trawler convicted of illegal trawling, on 20th May, at Portree as well as against the skipper for the value of the fishermen's nets then destroyed?

Mr. SKELTON: It is very doubtful if there is any power to take proceedings against any person except the person responsible for causing the damage, but my right hon. Friend is in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate on the subject.

HONG KONG (FORESHORE ORDINANCE).

Sir JOHN WARDLAW-MILNE: 47
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies (1) whether, under the proposed Foreshore and Sea-bed Works Ordinance, the Government of Hong Kong contemplate carrying out any schemes of reclamation; if so, what is the nature of such schemes and where is it proposed to carry them out; and whether the marine lot-holders who will be affected thereby will be entitled to the benefit of any such reclamations upon similar terms to those upon which reclamations have been carried out in the past;
(2) whether, under the proposed Foreshore and Sea-bed Works Ordinance, the Government of Hong Kong contemplate carrying out any works in the harbour of the Colony comprising the construction by the Government of warehouses for any purposes, and, if so, what is the nature of such works; where is it proposed to carry them out; and for what purposes are such warehouses to be used; and
(3) whether, under the proposed Foreshore and Sea-bed Works Ordinance, the Government of Hong Kong contemplate carrying out any works in the harbour of the Colony or establishing any transport services in the harbour which are likely to interfere substantially with the marine rights or facilities of any of the existing marine lot-holders or with any existing transport services; and, if so, what is the nature of such works or services?

Sir VICTOR WARRENDER (Vice-Chamberlain of the Household): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has not yet received from the Governor of Hong Kong any detailed proposals for works to be executed under the provisions of the Ordinance, but the Governor has explained that, in a Colony of the geographical formation of Hong Kong, there are many schemes, such for example as approaches to vehicle and passenger ferries, which render a general Bill of this nature essential to the proper planning and development of the Colony. The Secretary of State's prior approval would be required before any important scheme involving the expenditure of public money could be initiated.

Sir J. WARDLAW-MILNE: May I ask whether he will represent to the Secretary of State for the Colonies the undesirability of putting in a public Bill a Clause which gives such immense right for the extinguishing of private enterprise and private marine rights in the whole colony of Hong Kong and the desirability of proceeding as in the past by means of special Orders, instead of making an example that might be followed to the detriment of British trade by the Chinese authorities?

TERRITORIAL ARMY OFFICERS (INCOME TAX).

Captain WATT: 53.
asked the Financial Secretary to the War Office if he is aware that officers in the Territorial Army are being refused their rebate of Income Tax on £7 10s. in respect of the upkeep of uniform, on the ground that Territorial Army officers received no pay last year owing to the cancellation of Territorial camps; and if he will take steps to make good this amount to the officers concerned?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I am aware of the position. The matter has been carefully considered, but I regret that a grant of the nature suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend cannot be made from Army funds.

Captain WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Territorial officers have to maintain their uniforms, whether they receive any pay or not, and is he aware
that the vast majority of Territorial officers attended camp last year on a voluntary basis?

Mr. COOPER: I am aware of those facts, but I regret that there are no steps that the War Office can take.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: Cannot the hon. Gentleman reconsider this matter, as it is this type of grievance that is doing a lot of harm?

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC HEALTH.

MENTAL TREATMENT.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 20.
(for Mr. DAVID GRENFELL) asked the Minister of Health the items included in the Board of Control's estimate of £500 as the capital cost of providing a bed in a mental hospital; what new buildings have been erected in the past year under their supervision; and what further buildings are in contemplation?

Sir H. YOUNG: As the answer is somewhat long and involves a number of figures, I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT

Following is the answer:

The estimate of £500 was made in 1931, and I am advised that the comparable figure to-day would he about £440. The figure was for a bed in a complete new mental hospital, and included a proportion of the estimated initial cost of the following items: (a) patients' residential accommodation; (b) ancillary premises such as church, workshops, recreation hall, laundry, stores, kitchens, offices, power station; (c) accommodation for residential staff; (d) engineering services for heating, lighting, drainage and water supply and (e) roads and laying out of grounds. It. did not cover cost of land or furnishing. Figures are not available for the new buildings erected in 1932, and I am not in a position to say what further buildings are in contemplation. In 1932, the Board of Control approved plans for the provision of 979 beds, and during the first six months of the present year, plans for 999 beds, and they have under consideration plans for approximately another 3,000 beds. These schemes are, however, with very few exceptions, for additions or alterations to existing mental hospitals, and the cost will not approach the sum of £500 per bed.

Mr. C. EDWARDS: 21.
(for Mr. D. GRENFELL) asked the Minister of Health if he will give an estimate of the annual cost of the present lunacy system, distinguishing what falls upon the rates from what is borne by the State; the total cost of the Board of Control, including the total of the salaries of commissioners, sub-commissioners, inspectors, and sub-ordinate officials; and the total expended on the salaries of superintendents and their assistants and attendants, with the wages of all employés in public mental hospitals, together with the annual coat of the maintenance of the inmates?

Sir H. YOUNG: As the answer is some what long and involves a number of figures I propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In reply to the first part of the question, the net expenditure of local authorities in England and Wales on the lunacy service, falling on public funds in 1930–31, the latest year for which complete figures are available, was 27,133,403. The cost of the lunacy service, in common with that of other services, is defrayed partly out of rates and partly out of the Exchequer grants under the Local Act, 1929, but as these grants cannot be allocated to particular services the amount falling on rates for the lunacy service cannot be stated. In reply to the second part of the question, the total cost of the Board of Control for the year ended 31st March, 1932, was £139,533. Details will be found in the Civil Appropriation Accounts for 1931 (Class V, Vote 2). This figure includes expenditure in respect of the board's functions under the Mental Deficiency Acts. With regard to the last part of the question, the total cost of maintenance of the patients in public mental hospitals in England and Wales for the year ended 31st March, 1932, was £6,921,692, including £3,103,820 in respect of salaries and wages of all staff in the hospitals.

INFANT MORTALITY.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 25.
asked the Minister of Health if he will give the figures covering general and infant mortality rates, respectively, for England, Wales and Scotland separately for the last five years, including 1932 if possible?

Sir H. YOUNG: With the hon. Member's permission, I will circulate the figures for England and Wales in the OFFICIAL REPORT. With regard to the figures for Scotland the hon. Member should address an inquiry to my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether there has been an increase in infant mortality over England and Wales for 1932, as compared with 1931?

Sir H. YOUNG: The rates for England and Wales of infant mortality, giving the deaths in one year per 1,000 live births, were in 1932 65, and in 1931 66, so that there has been a decrease.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware of the statement of the Secretary of State for Scotland, that infant mortality is on the increase in Scotland as a result of the treatment that this Government has meted out to them?

Following are the figures:

England and Wales.


Year.
General Death Rate per 1,000 estimated population.
Infantile Mortality Rate (viz., deaths under 1 year of age per 1,000 live births).


1928
…
11.7
65


1929
…
13.4
74


1930
…
11.4
60


1931
…
12.3
66


1932
…
12.0
65

BEER DUTY.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 35.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury the effects on the revenue up to the last convenient date of the recent reduction in the price of beer?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: As the hon. Member will appreciate, the effects on the revenue of the recent reduction in the price of beer depend upon what the consumption would have been if the duty had not been reduced, which is, of course, a matter of conjecture. As shown in the Budget White Paper, the reduction of duty is estimated to cost the Exchequer £14 millions in 1933–34 and £16.3 millions in a full year. It would be premature at present to draw any conclusions as to the effect of the reduction upon the revenue.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (BLOCK GRANTS).

Mr. MAINWARING: 27.
asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the uneven manner in which the incidence of certain services falls upon local authorities, he is prepared to reconsider the whole system of block grants?

Sir H. YOUNG: No, Sir. The distribution of the block grant under the Local Government Act, 1929, is made under a formula devised to meet the varying needs of local authorities, and the Act itself provides for an investigation of the working before the end of the second fixed grant period.

CHEMICAL WORKS, BOW (FIRE).

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the disastrous fire which took place yesterday at a chemical works in Bow, during which people living in adjacent houses were exposed to great danger and two families were rendered homeless; and if, in view of the fact that this is the third occasion on which very serious and alarming fires have taken place at these works, he will order an immediate public inquiry into the causes of these outbreaks, and what steps can be taken to prevent them in future, so as to allay the anxiety which afflicts residents in the neighbourhood

Mr. HACKING: Factory inspectors are already engaged in investigating the cause of this fire, and will also investigate the records of previous fires at these works, and their causes. My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the desirability of clearing up the causes of serious and alarming fires of this kind and of allaying public anxiety, and, as soon as he receives the report of the inspectors, he will at once consider what further steps are necessary.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am much obliged.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. LANSBURY: May I ask the Lord President of the Council what will be the business for next week; and also what business he intends to endeavour to get through to-night, if the Motion on the Paper is carried?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Baldwin): To use the right hon. Gentleman's word, we shall endeavour to get the first five Orders to-night.

The business for next week will be:

Monday; Supply Committee, 18th Allotted Day—India Office Vote.

Tuesday: Remaining stages of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Bill, Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Amendment Bill [Lords], Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [Lords], and Service of Process (Justices) Bill; Second. Reading of the Isle of Man (Customs) Bill; Report stage, Navy, Army and Air Expenditure, 1931.

Wednesday and Thursday: Report stage of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill.

Friday: Road and Rail Traffic Bill, Third Reading.

On any day, if time permits, other Orders may be taken.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, although the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill deals with what appears to be a very small point, it is a highly contentious matter, and may take some time; and, in these circumstances, will he not exclude it if we get pinched for time to-night? The point which that Bill covers is a. very highly contentious one, and we shall want to oppose it with all the strength that we can put into the opposition.

Mr. BALDWIN: I must acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's courtesy in advising me of that. I think, however, we must wait until we get to that point and make our plans when we can see better what the position is.

Mr. LANSBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that we are getting close to the end of the Session, and do not want to get into bad habits by sitting very late on these nice, pleasant evenings?

Mr. LAMBERT: Could the right hon. Gentleman give us any indication as to when the Government propose to take the Lords Amendments to the Agricultural Marketing Bill?

Mr. BALDWIN: Those are included in the Orders which we hope to get to-day.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea whether we are going to adjourn when the House rises, or to prorogue; and when we shall re-assemble?

Mr. BALDWIN: I hope to be able to say something more definite about the reassembly of the House before we separate, but it will be an adjournment, and not a prorogation.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has said that Monday will be the 18th allotted Supply day. That only leaves two days more. Will an opportunity be provided to discuss the Dominions Office before the allotted days have expired?

Mr. BALDWIN: I cannot answer that question positively at the moment, but I understand that the Dominions Office Vote has been asked for on one of the two remaining days.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any state-

Division No. 263]
AYES.
[3.39 p.m.


Acland, Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cook, Thomas A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Cooke, Douglas
Grigg, Sir Edward


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cooper, A. Duff
Grimston, R. V.


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Copeland, Ida
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cowan, D. M.
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainab'ro)
Hall, Capt. W. D'Arcy (Brecon)


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Crossley, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)


Baillie, Sir Adrian W.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orknsy & Zetl'nd)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davies, Maj. Geo. F.(Somerset, Yeovil)
Hanbury, Cecil


Bateman, A. L.
Davison, Sir William Henry
Hanley, Dennis A.


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Henry Harbord, Arthur


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Donner, P. W.
Harris, Sir Percy


Bernays, Robert
Doran, Edward
Hartington, Marquess of


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Drewe, Cedric
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.)
Duggan, Hubert John
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Blaker, Sir Reginald
Dunglass, Lord
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Blindell, James
Eden, Robert Anthony
Holdsworth, Herbert


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Talton
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hornby, Frank


Brass, Captain Sir William
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.


Briscoe, Capt. Richard George
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Horabrugh, Florence


Broadbent, Colonel John
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Howard, Tom Forrest


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Hume, Sir George Hopwood


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Erskine-Boist, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Buchan, John
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Hurd, Sir Percy


Burghley, Lord
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Flelden, Edward Brocklehurst
James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.


Burnett, John George
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Flint, Abraham John
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Fox, Sir Gifford
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Knight, Holford


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm., W)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Christie, James Archibald
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Law, Sir Alfred


Clarry, Reginald George
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Goff, Sir Park
Leckie, J. A.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lees-Jones, John


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
Levy, Thomas


Conant, R. J. E.
Graves, Marjorie
Lindsay, Noel Ker

ment, before the House adjourns, on the question of the Cunarder on the Clyde? I do not know whether he has seen the statement in the Press to-day. Would it not be possible for the Government to make some authoritative statement, rather than leave the information to be obtained from the public Press, in view of the terrible anxiety which prevails among large numbers of poor people who are considerably concerned?

Mr. BALDWIN: At the moment I can only suggest that the hon. Member should put a question down; I am afraid I have no information at hand at the moment.

Motion made, and Question put,
That other Government Business have predecence this day of the Business of Supply, and that the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. Baldwin.]

The House divided: Ayes, 250; Noes, 36.

Llewellin, Major John J.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Lloyd, Geoffrey
Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Pike, Cecil F.
Spencer. Captain Richard A.


Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Potter, John
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.


Lymington, Viscount
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Mebane, William
Pybus, Percy John
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G.(Partick)
Palkes, Henry V. A. M.
Strauss, Eduard A.


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


McCorquodale, M. S.
Ramsbotham, Herwald
Sutcliffe, Harold


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


McKie, John Hamilton
Rankin. Robert
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ray, Sir William
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Maitland, Adam
Rea, Walter Russell
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham
Ward. Irene Mary Bewlek (Wallsend)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Wardlaw-Mline, Sir John S


Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Mills. Major J. D. (New Forest)
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Milne, Charles
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Runge, Norah Cecil
Weymouth, Viscount


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Morrison, William Shephard
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Samuel. Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Munro, Patrick
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Wise, Alfred R.


Murray-Phillpson, Hylton Ralph
Scone, Lord
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Womersley, Walter James


Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


North, Edward T.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Patrick. Colin M.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)



Pearson, William G.
Smith, R. W.(Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Peat, Charles U.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
George Penny.


Petherick, M.
Soper, Richard





NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Groves, Thomas E.
Mainwaring, William Henry


Banfield, John William
Grundy, Thomas W.
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hirst, George Henry
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps. Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, David
Thorne, William James


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Lunn, William



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.

"to amend the law with respect to customs in the Isle of Man," presented by Mr. Hore-Belisha; to be read a Second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

BILLS REPORTED.

SERVICE OF PROCESS (JUSTICES) BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MIS-CELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords].

Reported, with an Amendment, from Standing Committee B.

Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered upon Tuesday next.

SELECTION (STANDING COM-MITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. William Nicholson reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member
from Standing Committee C (added in:respect of the Protection of Birds Bill [Lords]): Mr. Godfrey Locker-Lampson: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Rhys.

Report to lie upon the Table.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,

Cotton Industry Bill,

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Traction Company (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the borough of Warwick." [Ministry of Health Provisional Order Confirmation (Warwick) Bill [Lords].

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (WARWICK) BILL [Lords],

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

Orders of the Day — SEA-FISHING INDUSTRY BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

CLAUSE 1 —(Regulation of landing of foreign-caught sea fish.)

Mr. SPEAKER: The first Amendment that I propose to call is that in the name of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams).

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: May I ask you, Sir, whether we are going to have a general discussion on this Amendment, as is the usual custom? If we could have that, I think we should get on more quickly with the individual Amendments.

Mr. SPEAKER: I certainly never heard of that being the usual custom on the Report stage. The general discussion will come on the Third Reading.

3.49 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after the word "order," to insert the words:
for a period not exceeding one year.
I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will be able to make all the points on this Amendment that he had intended to submit in favour of the deletion of the Clause. The Clause enables the President of the Board of Trade, having consulted the appropriate Ministers, to make an Order restricting or regulating the importation of fish. As the Bill now stands the Order restricting imports can be for ever. There is, however, an Amendment on the Order Paper standing in the name of the Minister, because after discussion in Committee the right hon. and gallant Gentleman responded to a plea to limit to some extent the length of time during which any such Order can be operative. His Amendment is to make the time limit of the operation of the Order three years, and our Amendment is to make the time limit for the Order 12 months. We think, in view of all the implications of Clause 1, that a limit of 12 months ought to be sufficient both for the Minister and for the fishing industry.
All hon. Members ought to understand that Clause 1 enables the Minister to
make an Order limiting the imports of fish if Orders are in existence relating to Clauses 2, 3 and 4. Under Clause 1 you enable the Minister, in accordance with certain conversations which have taken place with foreign countries, to limit imports by approximately 10 per cent., but Clause 2 enables the Minister to make another Order totally prohibiting fish from being imported from certain areas whether caught by British or foreign fishermen. The net quantities which may be prohibited under any such Order under Clause 2 would amount approximately to 500,000 cwts. That is a considerable proportion of the quantity of fish imported into this country annually. Clause 3 enables the Minister to make a further Order increasing the size of the mesh ostensibly for the purpose of allowing small fish to escape and restricting the quantities the trawlers will bring to the shore. Clause 4 prevents the retail fishmonger from selling fish below a certain size. The net result of an Order operating under Clause 1 will be, first of all, the restriction of imports by 500,000 cwts. under Clause 2. There will be a restriction of imports under Clause 3 of round about 200,000 cwts. Under an Order under Clause 1 there is a further restriction of 200,000 cwts., making 900,000 cwts. in all. On the top of this there has been, during the last two years, a decrease in imports of 500,000 cwts. That is a total of 1,400,000 cwts. which we deliberately prevent reaching these shores. Where would that lead us from the point of view of available supplies, and what effect would it have upon the price paid by retailers? The taking of 1,400,000 cwts. from our 1932 available supplies takes us back exactly to the 1929 quantities. That presumably will satisfy the trawler companies, but how will it affect the consumers of fish? In 1929, according to the Report of the Sea Fishing Commission, retail prices were 109 points above prewar prices. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see, therefore, that it is merely making a gift to the trawler owners to continue their inefficiency for a minimum period of three years. We do not think that it is fair to the consumers of fish in this country.
We are willing to concede from these benches that it may be necessary for an Order to be made and for some efficiency to be superimposed upon either the catch-
ing, landing, distributing, or selling of fish. If that is necessary, surely an Order restricting the supply for 12 months would be sufficient to enable the trawler companies, who are not all down and out when all the various sides of their businesses are taken into consideration, to deal with the position. Trawler companies are not unlike colliery companies used to be a few years ago. They were making no profits at the pithead, but with regard to the by-products belonging to the same companies, they were found, on further investigation, to be buying small coal at cheap prices and selling the by-products at high prices and making big profits. Here the same sort of thing applies to trawler companies, though not to all. We understand that ice is obtained at very low prices and sold to the trawler companies by the trawler companies trading under another name. They also buy coal and sell it at high prices to trawler companies.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Government have made up their minds that supplies of all kinds of foodstuffs have to be restricted. There has to be some sort of organised scarcity to produce reasonable prices to the producer. While we remain in Opposition it is our obligation and duty to see that this policy is not carried too far, and that some consideration is given to the consumers of fish in this country. We therefore believe that the Order which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will certainly make should be limited to 12 months. It will not only give the trawler companies time to reorganise their methods of catching and landing fish, but will help them to initiate better distributive methods, in order that the margin between the port and Billingsgate and the retailer shall be narrowed down so that all those who are in any way affected by the catching, distributing and consuming of fish shall not be dealt with harshly. We think that a period of 12 months is ample, and that within that period they ought to be able to put their house in order.
We ought not to expect less from trawler companies than we expect from agriculturists. Almost every hon. Member in the House has now made up his mind that sound marketing is the very basis of good business. That ought also to apply to the trawler companies. I hope
that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, optimistic as I know him to be, and feeling that the National Government at all times and at any time will always be in a position to repeat a good thing in the years that lie ahead, will respond to this appeal and will by implication intimate to the trawler companies that they have a duty, not only to themselves, but to the Government who are giving them this Bill, and to the consumers of fish. I hope that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will at this late hour see his way to accept the Amendment and so intimate to the trawler companies that during the 12 months they will have to put their 'house in order.

3.59 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO: I appeal to the Minister on no account to consider accepting the Amendment. Clause 1 proceeds by the method of restriction, but whether you proceed by the method of restriction of imported supplies or whether you proceed by tariff, the measures you take must obviously lose all efficiency in the direction of doing what the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has indicated if they have no element of permanence and would not enable any industry to improve itself, either to employ more labour or do anything useful in our present national situation. Nothing is so harmful to trade or industry as uncertainty, and if we limit by Statute the time during which these Orders can possibly operate to 12 months, nobody in this industry can possibly know at any time where they stand, and any attempt to reorganise or improve the industry, to employ more trawlers and catch and land more fish, is bound to fail. I understand from the hon. Member's speech—I was not on the Committee—that the Minister has already agreed—and I see it in the Bill—to restrict the Orders to a period of three years. That does give a certain defined period in which there is a probability—it is no higher—that an Order restricting foreign imports will last. It gives some element of stability. It is the absolute want of any stability in the measures that we are taking, the various Orders we are constantly passing here on the recommendation of the Import Duties Advisory Committee, or otherwise, that renders them so ineffective. Therefore, I shall oppose and, I hope, the Minister will oppose,
any attempt to cripple the whole of this Measure by limiting the Orders that can be made to a single period of 12 months.

4.2 p.m.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I should like to point out to the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) that this Amendment, if accepted, so far from crippling the Bill, would do nothing of the sort. There is nothing to prevent a fresh Order being made on the expiry of the first Order.

Sir B. PETO: But can anyone in the fishing industry possibly tell whether a new Order will be made or not?

Sir R. HAMILTON: I think my hon. Friend will appreciate what I was going to put before the House, that at the end of 12 months sufficient experience will have been gained to show whether the Order should be continued or repealed, and at the end of that 12 months, if it is necessary to make an Order again, it has to come before the House of Commons. One of the main objects of this Amendment is to ensure that the House of Commons shall be kept in touch with what is being done with regard to the industry, and it is an exaggeration to say that an Amendment of this sort would entirely damage the efficiency of the Bill. I would urge, rather, that it would tend to the efficiency of the Bill, because it would increase the interest which the House of Commons takes in these matters; it would keep it alive to what is being done, and the House would be able, at the end of 12 months' experience, to say whether the Order should be renewed or not. We have a similar Amendment a few lines further down tending in the same direction, but I should like to say that the Minister has gone some way to meet this point, which was raised in Committee. But although he has gone some way, we still think that he might have gone the whole way, and for that reason I beg to support the Amendment.

4.5 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: The hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has shown a fear which I do not think he need have. After all, I think it is recognised that the Government are going to run their full term. We are asking for a trial period of 12 months for this proposal, and if it be proved that this is a good thing for
the fishing industry, we shall have the same form of Government that we have now, and the Order can be renewed. The House will have been watching the whole time what has been taking place. If there is an Order keeping 70,000 tons of fish off the market, it may create such a position that we have not sufficient fish to satisfy our people. If, however, it is shown that things have gone smoothly, the objection felt on these benches will be removed, and it will satisfy hon. Members opposite. Three years is a long period in a matter of this kind, and we on these benches are afraid that it may upset the whole of the industry. If it does not, then at the end of 12 months the Government can come forward and say that our fears are not justified, that the Order has worked smoothly, and therefore they ask for a renewal of the Order. I think the Amendment is quite a reasonable one, as it merely asks for sufficient time in which to judge whether the proposal is a good thing or not.

4.7 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): The object of this Bill, the principle of which has, of course, already been passed by the Second Reading, and the details of which were discussed in Committee, is to help the sea-fishing industry. No one in any part of the House has affirmed that all is well with that industry. It, is common ground that until, at all events, the provisions of this Bill became public property, there was not a single trawler under construction. The time taken to build a trawler is somewhere between nine and 12 months. The point made by the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is quite right, that you cannot help the industry if you introduce a new element of disquiet. To suggest that there may be some regulation of foreign landings, but that in 12 months' time that provision might cease to apply, is not an encouragement which would induce the building of trawlers and the reorganisation of the industry. This is a matter which is not unconnected with trading agreements. The period of the trading agreements is three years. As it takes nearly 12 months to build a trawler, as the trade agreements are for three years, and as the period of 12 months is not sufficient to bring stability or confidence into the industry, it follows that the
Government cannot accept this Amendment, and that we must ask the House to reject it.
I would call the attention of the House to the fact that under Clause 7 (1), the Board of Trade has power to vary or revoke an Order under exactly similar conditions that it has power to make one. There is, therefore, a complete control over an Order which is made. The pledge given during the Committee stage was that an Order when once made should not be left to run for an indeterminate period, and we have given power to the Department to review that Order. In accordance with that pledge, and very fully fulfilling it, there is a Government Amendment on the Order Paper, in page 2, line 24, to which we shall come shortly. Under that Amendment, an Order under Clause 1 ceases to have effect at the end of three years, unless there is an affirmative vote of Parliament approving its continuation. We have therefore, the point well under observation that there should be control of these Orders. There being a Government Amendment which fully fulfils the pledge that was given, and having regard to the facts I have mentioned, I think the House would not be doing the industry a service at all if it endeavoured to prescribe for an Order made restricting foreign landings a period so short as a year, or anything indeed less than the three years.

4.10 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I am, indeed, astonished at the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. He told us that the Board of Trade may be entrusted with the power of revoking an Order within the next three years, but that the House of Commons must on no account be given the same power.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Major Elliot): That is not right. The Board of Trade has power to lay an Order before the House, which is quite a different thing.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: We want to ensure that it shall not be left, to the discretion of the Board of Trade, but that Parliament itself shall say whether or not an Order shall come to an end. The only way to safeguard the authority of Parliament in this matter is to pass this Amendment.
There is another astonishing feature of the speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. We are all agreed with him that the position of the fishing industry is very serious. This is not the time, as you, Mr. Speaker, pointed out to me, to discuss the wider aspects of the question whether or not this Bill does go to the root causes of the distress of the fishing industry in general, and of the most depressed sections of the fishing industry in particular. I think it does not, but we may have an opportunity later of discussing that. Nor do we think that this method of restriction is the right kind of way to cure these evils; but we understood that it was upon the theory of restriction that the Government were proceeding. More than that, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture, in moving the Second Reading, was very scrupulous to point out that this method of restriction would apply not only to foreign imports but also to landings in British vessels. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman made it clear that if it did not apply equally to landings from British vessels, it would be inconsistent with the International Convention for the Abolition of Import and Export Prohibitions to which this country is a party. die said that under that International Convention:
the following prohibitions or restrictions were specified as not prohibited by the Convention, namely:
'Prohibitions or restrictions designed to extend to foreign products the régime established within the country in respect of production of, trade in, and transport and consumption of native products of the same kind.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1933; col. 1355, Vol. 279.]
That means to say, that if we are under that Convention to prohibit the landing of foreign-caught fish, we are bound under that Convention to subject our own fishermen to the same régime, and we were told that that was in fact what was intended by the Government. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) interrupted the speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on this very point, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman replied:
The first three Orders restrict, and drastically restrict, the supply of fish to the markets by the British fishermen."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1933; col. 1357, Vol. 279.]
Now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade tells us that on the basis of these Orders, new trawlers are to be constructed immediately, and the catching power improved. If that means anything at all it can only mean one of two things, either that the régime is not going to apply equally to the British fishermen and the foreign fishermen and that the landings from British ships are not to be restricted in the same measure as the landings from foreign ships, or it will be done at the expense of other sections of the fishing industry, such as the inshore fishermen. The reasons given by the Parliamentary Secretary for rejecting the Amendment are inadequate and leave us no option but to support the Amendment.

4.16 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: I regret that the Government have declined to accept the Amendment, which is a very reasonable one. We moved it in Committee and they adopted the same stubborn attitude. The hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) has come to the conclusion that this Bill will mean the employment of more men in sea fishing, and also the employment of more trawlers. If he will look at the memorandum printed on the first page of the Bill he will see that that is not intended. The intention deliberately is to reduce as far as possible the amount of fish coming into this country, in order to improve the conditions of those already employed. The Parliamentary Secretary suggested that there would be new construction of trawlers consequent upon the passage of the Bill, but the information I have goes to show that whatever happens under this Bill it will be very difficult to employ all the trawlers now in existence. Let me read a letter which I have received. I am not now speaking of Grimsby, but of Fleetwood. Fleetwood is in Lancashire. This is the situation in Fleetwood:
A good proportion of the fleet, varying from one-fourth to one-third has been laid up, some more or less permanently and others temporarily. The highest number has been about 50. About half the space of the old dock is taken up by these boats. which is a partial hindrance to the expeditious movement of sailing vessels.
Therefore, it does not appear to me that there will be any new trawlers required
in Fleetwood for some time, even if foreign fish is prevented from coming into this country. Moreover, there is one provision in the Bill which makes it clear that our own trawlers shall not fish in certain seas for three months in the year. Therefore, the point made by the hon. Baronet will not hold good. It is not the intention of the Government to do anything to extend the number of trawlers or to find more work for men in sea fishing. What they intend to do is to reduce the amount of fish coming into the country in order, so they say, to improve the quality of the fish already coming in and to improve the conditions of the trawler men who are already employed.
The main reason why we are moving the Amendment is that since the War there has been a great increase in the powers of Departments of State, and some of us are becoming alarmed about it. In connection with almost every Bill that is brought before this Parliament Departments seek to proceed by regulations or orders without reference to the House of Commons. It is all very well the Minister of Agriculture smiling contemptuously when he is in office, but he must remember that what he does to-day in securing orders without reference to Parliament may be a very good precedent for us when we are sitting on the Government Benches. We are coming there in due course. There can be no doubt about that, especially when the consumers of fish see that the deliberate intention of this Government is to restrict the supply of fish. We shall divide on the Amendment, because we think that Parliament ought to take greater interest in sea fishing than it does. Our Amendment would give it an opportunity at least once a year to review these Orders.
The problem of the housewife in the working-class home to-day is to make ends meet in regard to the cost of fish and other food, and that is a matter of grave concern. We should like the opportunity to be given to Parliament to review the position at the end of each year. If the result of the Bill has been to raise the price of fish, then Parliament will be able to say: "We will have no more of it." If, on the other hand, Parliament finds that the supply of fish has not been so restricted and that the price has not been adversely affected, it can say that it
will continue the Act for another year. These are the arguments in favour of the Amendment and I hope the Minister will look at it more kindly than hitherto.

Division No. 264.]
AYES.
[4.22 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Waiter Russell


Banfield, John William
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Batey, Joseph
Kirkwood, David
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thnese)


Buchanan, George
Lawson, John James
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Leonard, William
Thorne, William James


Edwards, Charles
Logan, David Gilbert
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Lunn, William
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
McEntee, Valentino L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Greaten, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grundy, Thomas W.
Mainwaring, William Henry
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Hamilton, Sir R. W. (Orkney & Ztl'nd)
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)



Harris, Sir Percy
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen
Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Groves




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
MacAndrew, Lieut-Col. C. G.(Partick)


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Allen, Lt-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nhd.)
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
McKie, John Hamilton


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)


Astbory, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blk'pool)
Maitland, Adam


Balllie, Sir Adrian W. M.
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Manningharn-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Everard, W. Lindsay
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M,
Palle, Sir Bertram G.
Marsden, Commander Arthur


Bateman, A. L.
Fox, Sir Gifford
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell
Fraser, Captain Ian
Milne, Charles


Belt, Sir Alfred L.
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Rena, Sir Arthur Shirley
Ganzoni, Sir John
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Blindell, James
Gluckstein, Louis Haife
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)


Boulton, W. W.
Goff, Sir Park
Morrison, William Shephard


Bower, Lieut-Com. Robert Tatton
Gower, Sir Robert
Moss, Captain H. J.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'ri'd, N.)
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hilisborough)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Macro, Patrick


Broadbent. Colonel John
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Grimston, R. V.
Newton, Sir Douglas George C.


Buchan, John
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Peteref'ld)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
North, Edward T.


Burghley, Lord
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pearson, William G.


Burgh, Dr. Edward Leslie
Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)
Peat, Charles U.


Burnett, John George
Hanbury, Cecil
Perkins, Walter R. D.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hanley, Dennis A.
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harbord, Arthur
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Hartingtan, Marquess of
Pike, Cecil F.


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. Sir J.A. (Birm., W)
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Potter, John


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Pybus, Percy John


Christe, James Archibald
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.


Cherry, Reginald George
Hornby, Frank
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rankin, Robert


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Rawson, Sir Cooper


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Ray, Sir William


Conant, R. J. E.
Hunter, Capt. M. J. (Brigg)
Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham


Cook. Thomas A.
Hurd, Sir Percy
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Cooke. Douglas
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Rantoul, Sir Gervals S.


Cooper, A. Duff
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Joel, Dudley J. Barnato
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Cowan. D. M.
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Crossley, A. C.
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Cruddos, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Knight, Holford
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Donner, P. W.
Law, Sir Alfred
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Doran, Edward
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Drewe, Cedric
Leckie, J. A.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Duggan, Hubert John
Lees-Jones, John
Savery, Samuel Servington


Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)
Levy, Thomas
Scone, Lord


Dunglass, Lord
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Selley, Harry R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Shute, Colonel J. J.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Lymington, Viscount
Skelton, Archibald Noel

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 39; Noes, 211.

Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Klnc'dine, C.)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Titchfield, Major the Marquees of
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)
Wilson, Lt-Col. Sir Arnold (Hertf'd)


Soper, Richard
Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Wise, Alfred R.


Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Turton, Robert Hugh
Wormer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)
Womersley, Walter James


Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Strauss, Edward A.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles



Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Watt, Captain George Sloven H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Wedderburn, Henry James Serymgeour
Sir George Penny and Mr.


Summersby, Charles H.
Weymouth, Viscount
Womersley.


Sutcliffe, Harold
Whyte, Jardine Bell

4.30 p.m.

Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, to leave out the words
the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands.
We had some discussion on this matter in the Committee stage and the Minister promised that he would look into it again. The right hon. Gentleman originally omitted these islands and then changed his mind. He must now have come to the conclusion that his original thoughts were best. The defence that he made in Committee covered a good deal of ground, but he was not so convincing as I have heard him. I will not say anything about the extraordinary position which these islands hold as regards taxation, but I would point out that although we are not importing any considerable amount of fish from the Channel Islands there is a serious danger that the same kind of thing will happen in regard to fish from the Channel Islands as in regard to other products. The object of the Bill, in the main, is to give work and wages to Britishers. At the present time the vast amount of employment in the Channel Islands goes to people of France. I do not quarrel with anything that the Channel Islands have done, and I apologise to any hon. Member who has a close connection with them that the Government have been so ill advised in regard to what I believe are more correctly called the Norman Islands.
This is one of the occasions when it would be much better if we did not extend to these islands the privileges which we are giving to our own people. The first argument in favour of extension used by the Minister was that the Channel Islands are part of the King's Dominions. That is fairly obvious, but there are other parts of the King's Dominions which are not in the Bill. Southern Ireland for instance. Although
there may not be a large amount of fish coming from the Channel Islands, if the Minister is afraid of any such thing happening it would be wise to keep them out, because some other parts of the King's Dominions might also claim to come in. The Minister also said that this is a very delicate constitutional question. I quite agree, it is. I am not quite sure how the Channel Islands are affected by the netting Clause. That is a most delicate constitutional question. If you leave them out of the Bill it cannot arise. But if you bring them in and they are affected by the netting Clause it means that you will have to enforce the Clause, and you will find it a very difficult question to try and enforce that Clause on the Channel Islands. It is a difficulty which the Minister might well wish to avoid. If they do not come in under the netting Clause his position is still more difficult. You are giving to the islands all the privileges which are given to our own people, but you are not able to enforce them now or in the future, and we must take a long view not a short one-year view. H you give them an additional privilege to those which they have already the difficulty in two or three years time might be very great.
Now I come to the third reason given by the Minister. I pointed out that you may have the ships manned by Frenchmen but registered as British, and quite correct; and the Minister pointed out that that raised a very much wider question and might be one of great difficulty. He also said that if it did arise Parliament would deal with it. If this raises big and delicate questions you had better leave them out and avoid the difficulty, and you would not be in the position that in a year or two the Government would have to deal with it. I am doing what I am always doing for the Government, I fear the difficulty of the grievance becoming so big that it may be very difficult
for the Minister to deal with. From that point of view it might be wise for the Minister of Agriculture to accept the Amendment. Having dealt with the Minister's reasons for putting these Islands in I have tried to find a real reason, and I have discovered that someone has seen imported from the Channel Islands a form of fish known as Finnan Haddock. These come from somewhere near the East Coast, the best, of course, come from Grimsby, where you have a special kind; and Grimsby is founded from Brixham in my constituency. I ask the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) to persuade the Minister to yield on this point. We feel it very much in the West country, and there is no chance of anyone being able to capture that market from the East Coast.
The chief argument in favour of the position I take up has been kindly and graciously granted to me by the Minister of Agriculture himself, in another speech. There is nothing like going to your adversaries in order to get your best points. Two nights ago, in a brilliant speech at the end of the Debate on agriculture, he pointed out the appalling consequences which have happened in country districts owing to high taxation and how the agricultural industry has been hit again and again. But there is exactly the same shortage of money, from the same cause, in the fishing industry. If it affects agriculture we know that it also affects the fishing industry. There are many small villages right round the coast of England which are hard hit by heavy taxation, and you are going out of your way to give a chance to people to bring up an industry in a place which is not heavily taxed and then to come over and compete with our own people. I ask the Minister to realise that not very much has been done for the smaller industries in the West Country and to give way on this matter. We shall then be able to look with more enthusiasm on the Bill. I hope he will see his way to go back to his original position.

Commander MARSDEN: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.40 p.m.

Sir BERTRAM FALLE: I have listened to the speech of my friend the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) with a great deal of interest,
more particularly when he was speaking of the Channel Islands. He spoke of "our own people," and did not seem to regard the inhabitants of the Channel Islands as our own people. I would really like to ask him who his own people are?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: First, they are the people in my own constituency, and then the people of the country who are represented in the House of Commons.

Sir B. FALLE: King John and Queen Elizabeth, who was a great Queen and knew what she was doing, gave a charter to the Norman Islands, as the Channel Islands are more properly called, ordering that the people should be treated not as strangers but as native Englishmen
non tangtunn alienigenae sed tanquam indigenae
I see no reason why the people of the Norman Islands are not as much our own people as the people of Brixham—both a seafaring people. I see no particular reason for his argument to exclude these Islands from the Bill. If it is a case of looking ahead, nothing that this Parliament does will bind the next and, therefore, if it is found necessary to amend the law an amendment will no doubt be made, and the Minister of Agriculture will have no feeling of shyness in doing so. The people of the Norman Islands proved their loyalty to their King and Duke for hundreds of years in the last War. Jersey of her own free will sent 17½ per cent. of her population to the War, and if she had done no more that would entitle her to receive fair treatment from this House. If she manages her affairs so well that she does not require a 5s. Income Tax, why should she be reproached? She does not ask for subsidies or doles, and as for Income Tax, every man living in Jersey pays full Income Tax on the dividends received through London. The further idea that we would be flooded with French fish coming from the Norman Islands is the sort of thing that I would not expect to have been said by the hon. Member. The ships of the Norman Islands are carefully looked after and no French boat could possibly bring here fish caught in those waters. If she had any fish caught in territorial waters, she could not possibly bring them to this country as a Channel Islands registered fishing boat.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: As one who is also descended from Channel Islands ancestry, in Guernsey, I would support my hon. Friend who has just spoken in opposition to the Amendment. I do not know whether this Bill has, any great value, but as far as it has any at all I think that the Channel Islands, part of the ancient Duchy of Normandy which conquered these islands at the time of William the Conqueror, ought to be entitled to any benefits that may result from the passing of the Bill. Small as those benefits may be, I wish to join in resisting the Amendment which has been so unfortunately proposed by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams).

4.47 p.m.

Sir B. PETO: I want to put forward one practical disadvantage in refusing this Amendment. In Clause 1, after the words "United Kingdom" there appear the words "the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands," so that they are to have the benefit of being regarded as British fishing boats so far as any advantages provided in Clause 1 are concerned. The Clause restricts the landing on these shores of fish which are not caught by British fishing boats. But when we come to Clause 3 we find that it restricts the size of mesh of nets, and we find there mentioned fishing boats registered in the United Kingdom only, without any reference to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, East (Mr. islander) said he wanted the Channel Islands to have the advantages of this Bill, but what he really wants is that the Channel Islands should have the advantages of Clause 1 and be exempt from any of the restrictions under Clause 3. That is really an impossible thing. Surely it is very unusual, if not unprecedented, so to construct a Measure that it confines the advantage under one Clause to a certain part of the Dominions of His Majesty, while another Clause in the same Bill does not apply to that same part of the Dominions, in this case the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. We should either strike out the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man altogether or put them into the whole Bill.

4.49 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I do not want the House to be under any misapprehension. There
are on the Paper Government Amendments which propose to apply the remaining Clauses of the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. The point raised by the hon. Baronet the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) is, therefore, fully met by Government Amendments. At any rate I can give him the assurance that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are t be dealt with on the same footing throughout. A substantial point was raised by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), as to whether these islands should be included at all. We are all naturally sensitive of nationality, and those of us who have had occasion constantly to try in documents to define these islands—I mean the United Kingdom and the adjacent islands—have been struck with the difficulty of finding any one expression which includes Scotland, the Orkneys and Shetlands, the Western Isles, England, Wales, the Isle of Wight, Anglesey, Northern and Southern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

Sir B. FALLE: Great and Little Cum-brae.

Dr. BURGIN: If the hon. Member for Torquay looks at Section 18 of the Interpretation Act he will find the words "British Islands," which include the United Kingdom, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. When this Bill was drafted and it was desired to make a difference between a United Kingdom vessel and a foreign vessel, the expression used in the first draft was "United Kingdom." There seems to be no reason why the benefit given to a fishing vessel of one of the home ports should not be given to the vessel of that territory which is really part, of the larger aggregate. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man clearly come within that description. There are no practical difficulties. It has not been found that the registration of vessels in the Channel Islands has caused any difficulty. In practice there is no fish landed from the Channel Islands in the ports of this country. The tendency is rather the reverse. But, as has been said, for the purpose of symmetry it is better that these outlying islands should be included, as they logically are, in the greater unit of the United Kingdom, which is really the area we are intending to describe.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: Why not the whole of Southern Ireland as well?

Dr. BURGIN: The answer is very simple. Southern Ireland is no longer part of the United Kingdom. It is a separate Dominion, exactly the same as our self-governing Dominions overseas.

Mr. WILLIAMS: But the Channel Islands have a separate legislature.

Dr. BURGIN: There is no comparison at all. We shall find, when we come to deal with Government Amendments later, that Orders in Council are made by the King in Council to deal with these matters, in applying them to the Channel Islands. I was hoping that the explanation I have given was historically complete enough to satisfy the hon. Member who moved the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 2, line 9, to leave out the words "three years," and to insert instead thereof the words "one year."
I appreciate the main controversial point contained in this Clause, as stated by the Minister of Agriculture himself. I think this Amendment raises it. I am prepared to admit that the period of time is very important from the point of view of the owners. They have interests and relationships that have grown up, perhaps not in a form that can be called proper organisation, and they will have in some way and some measure to alter those relationships. While it is so important for the owner to have time, it is also a question of great importance to the consumers of fish. Because of that we are of opinion that the three years which is to be given is far too long for the purpose intended in this Sub-section. In view of the fact that owners are expected to take some action that will display their willingness to organise themselves in a better way, we think that to give that emphasis they should be allowed one year and not three years. Three years would permit far too much latitude, and would perhaps allow certain sections who are in opposition to any reorganisation too much time to act on any tactics that are designed to kill the purpose of the Bill.
It cannot be said that the defects in this branch of the industry are not known.
They must be known to the officials of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, who present a report from time to time. There has been an investigation into the industry, and the Fishing Industry Committee has presented a report which Members of the House have seen. In view of the fact that these two governmental sources and the industry itself are quite well aware of the things that have to be modified or altered, one year is sufficient time to allow. I am advised that there are statistical reports in existence showing, with regard to foreign fish, that advantage is being taken of reduced competition already. That is a sufficient advantage to give. If at the end of one year no steps have been taken by those in the industry, this House should be given an opportunity of having some say in the matter and of deciding whether any further protection should be afforded.

Mr. CHARLES BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

4.58 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: I always welcome the compliment when anyone calls me an optimist. If I understand this Amendment properly the hon. Member who moved it must be an optimist. His suggestion is that within one year the Sea-fish Commission will have been appointed, will have got to business, will have reviewed the entire industry, will have made a comprehensive report, and that adequate time will have been allowed the Government Departments to consider that report and to frame action upon it. Is it reasonable to think that all that can happen in 12 months? It does not seem to me to be practical business at all. The Mover of the Amendment framed his speech as if the Amendment would give the House a greater review. But surely o he has not fully appreciated the effect of the words he is seeking to introduce. What he is seeking to do is to say that at the end of one year from the passage of this Bill no Order shall have any effect unless the Board of Trade have had regard to the Sea-fish Commission's report and various other matters detailed in Sub-section (4) of Clause 1. That means that the Order would cease to apply Surely that is a restrictive effect that the hon. Member would not wish. Great safeguards to consumers, great safeguards to the industry generally, are incorporated by having a Sea-fish Commission.
The hon. Member and his friends attach great value to the commission and its report, and rightly so, and we desire full advantage to be taken of the existence of the commission and all its powers of review and suggestion. Surely a report from such a commission will require very careful consideration. It seems to me apparent that a period of one year is quite inadequate for the commission to have functioned and for the necessary report to have been received. I ask the House, therefore, to reject the Amendment.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The Parliamentary Secretary always makes out a marvellous case and he is sometimes on the borderline of convincing even me. The difficulty about him is that unfortunately he always convinces himself. He has said that if this Amendment were accepted any Order in existence at the end of 12 months would have to lapse. He said that if all the investigations had not been carried out in that time by the Sea-fish Commission, and all the results of their inquiries, their recommendations and their suggestions had not been carried into effect all those Orders would cease to operate. The hon. Gentleman knows that nothing of the kind would take place, and I hope that no hon. Member will take his word on that score. What does the Bill state?
After the end of the period of three years … no order … shall be made … unless it appears … that there have been or are being taken all such steps … as are practicable and necessary for the efficient organisation of that branch of the sea fishing industry.
There is no requirement that all the recommendations must have been applied or that within 12 months the commission must have completed all its inquiries into conditions at the ports, methods of landing, methods of auctioning, methods of distribution and all the various difficulties which arise in connection with fish between the fishing ports and the fishmonger's shop. The Parliamentary Secretary partly misleads the House when he suggests that unless all these things are done and all these recommendations are applied, an Order would fall. It would not do anything of the kind. All that is expected under the Amendment is that the commission shall report within 12 months and that the
trawling section shall have expressed themselves as being willing to give effect to some of the recommendations. The Parliamentary Secretary's speech seemed to imply that nobody had ever looked into the condition of the fishing industry in the whole history of this country, that nobody knew anything about it, that this investigation would start de novo and that we should have to go through these matters from A to Z before it was possible to express any opinion upon the catching, landing, distribution and sale of fish under present conditions. But the committee which reported in 1932 received information and advice and guidance from experts both inside and outside the industry. Let me give one or two of the points which were submitted to them.

Dr. BURGIN: Will the hon. Gentleman give their recommendations?

Mr. WILLIAMS: I am not here to give recommendations except a recommendation to hon. Members not to take the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary. I am always on safe ground when I make that recommendation. Here is some of the information which was supplied to that Committee and it may be information to the Parliamentary Secretary himself. Referring to the slipshod individualistic methods followed by the trawler companies and the individual owners it was suggested that sailings ought to be planned in order to ensure regular landings of fish, so that the market should not be glutted on some days and short on other days. It was pointed out that the approximate number of vessels due on any one particular date should be known in advance, and that central planning would ensure the definite sweeping of the seas on prearranged lines, a particular area being allocated to a particular trawler. I could read sheet after sheet of recommendations of that kind made by experts who know all that there is to be known about the catching, landing, distribution and sale of fish.
Therefore, the Sea-fish Commission will not start de novo. A good deal of evidence is already available and with this information at their disposal, all they have to do is to express themselves as to whether they think that this or that recommendation would be beneficial or oherwise to the industry. It would be possible to put into operation as quickly
as possible consistent with not disturbing the industry the recommendations which have already been reached and which are considered desirable. It should be remembered that we are calling upon the consumers of fish in this country to pay a considerable sum in excess prices during this intervening period and I suggest that the advice of the Parliamentary Secretary as to the duration of the period should be ignored even by his own supporters, though I hate to inculcate disloyalty among the supporters of the Government. I should of course like to see the Government beaten on one of these issues which affect consumers, but I suggest that in this matter the Government have not got a case and that the Amendment ought to be accepted, first in order to inspire the Commission into immediate activity; secondly to inspire the white fish industry to respond to the overtures which the Government are making, and thirdly, to show that we appreciate the fact that the consumer will be obliged to pay more during the period of reorganisation.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: It is only right that one or two comments should be made on the very interesting speech—full of information carefully collected by Transport House—to which we have just listened. It is the fashion now to slobber over our opponents but I must say that we have all listened with great respect to the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I share some of his feelings upon this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that this Commission might take some time to report. I have a great dislike to all Commissions as a general policy. I think they are a means (of wasting time, They work round and round and expend the taxpayers' money and I think we are justified on this occasion on asking how long this Commission are likely to take to go into the question. A lot of people are very interested to know exactly what sort of Commission it is to be and I think the Government ought to give us a little more light and information on the subject after the speech of the hon. Member for Don Valley.
I do not think however that I can support the Amendment as it stands. It goes too far. I might consider it more favourably if it had proposed a period of
two years instead of one year. Whether the Opposition would like to change it or not on that account I do not know. I do not say that I would be willing to go as far as the two years but I might consider it favourably. No one wishes more than I do to see the reorganisation of the industry but an industry is not organised in this manner once and for all. Industries have to be subject to perpetual reorganisation. It is a continuous process and when the Parliamentary Secretary said something about reorganising the industry in three years I think, with all due respect, he was proposing something which is impossible. You may begin a stage of reorganisation and even complete it, but you cannot reorganise an industry permanently and I do not want any Member of this House to be misled into the belief that Government reorganisation of any industry, whether agriculture or fishing, simply means that there is to be one turn of the wheel and that the whole thing can thereafter be left to carry on by itself. I do not think the Government intend to mislead any hon. Members but I think they might explain the position a little more fully.
There is another point which was mentioned by the Mover of the Amendment and by the last speaker and which I have no doubt would also have been dealt with by the Seconder of the Amendment if the brief had been available. That is the position of the consumer. The consumer represents a very important factor and we have to consider whether in three years or in one year we can get the fishing industry into a state in which the interests of the consumer will be served. The Socialist party are always talking about the consumer but in this matter he appears to have been left out even by the Liberals. I suppose that is because they are in process of conversion to an extreme policy of tariffs and quotas and things of that kind. I hope that the Government will stand by the words in the Bill. We are stating here that within a certain time a certain movement is to take place in this industry and if we cut down that period too much we are not giving the various bodies concerned sufficient time in which to do their work. At the same time I hope that the work of this Commission will be accelerated as far as possible. We have a live Minister, one who is liable to get things done and I hope that he will inspire this commission
with his own spirit so that they will report in a comparatively short time.
As has been pointed out a great amount of the information is already assembled and while the Minister does not seem to think that appeals from those who generally support the Government are worthy of consideration, I would appeal to him to expedite as far as he can the work of this commission. I hope it will not be one of those commissions which wanders slowly about the country collecting information, then sifts and re-sifts that information, and finally presents it to us in the form of a long, dull book. We all hope that its work will be as bright and snappy as the Minister can make it. I notice that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) is anxious to intervene. I suppose he is coming to the rescue of the Government who always welcome his support. I hope on this occasion he will join me in urging the Government to accelerate the application of such of the recommendations as he considers desirable. As he is a Scot I put in the proviso that I do not want to hurry matters in such a way that the report will not be a complete report. I ask the Government not to accept this Amendment, however well-disposed they may be feeling towards the Opposition.

5.15 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: My object is not so much to support the Government as to support the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). The point of substance is to make sure that this Commission will get to work quickly and report quickly. I know there is a great feeling among fishermen in Scotland—and it has been expressed by my hon and gallant Friend in this House—that we have had already a great many Commissions on this industry, that there is a mass of information at the disposal of the two Government Departments which deal with these questions, and that action ought to be taken quickly. I do not altogether share that view. I am glad that the Government have brought in Clause 5 of this Bill, but I am sure that it would be a great disappointment to the fishing industry, and in particular to the inshore fishermen, who stand to gain most by marketing reforms, if we
had to wait three years for any report from this Commission. I would refer hon. Members to paragraphs 82 to 92 of the Scott Commission Report which emphasise the great importance of this question of marketing, particularly from the point of view of the inshore fishermen, and I therefore ask the Government whether they cannot give us some assurance that the Commission will be asked to give an interim report on this particular question of marketing, to which we attach great importance, dealing in particular with those questions that are raised in the Scott Committee Report. I feel sure that if the Government were in a position to give the House such an assurance, it would influence the attitude of a number of us towards this Amendment.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. BANFIELD: There is a principle in this Amendment which is worthy of far more serious consideration than the Parliamentary Secretary gave to it. If I may say so, for the information of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), I am not on this occasion speaking from a brief, and even if I were, I should have no payment for it. I am at a loss to understand the hon. Member for Torquay, who apparently complains because the Government Front Bench treat the Opposition with ordinary courtesy. I have not noticed any particular disposition on the part of Ministers to slobber over us, to use the eloquent phrase of the hon. Member. The whole House will agree, I think, that these measures for creating an artificial shortage in this or that commodity cannot be looked upon with any particular favour unless at the same time they carry with them a reorganisation of the industry concerned. One is driven to the conclusion sometimes that in the vast majority of cases all that the industries come to the Government for are quotas, or restrictions, or anything that will put up the price of their particular commodity, but they are quite content, after giving some vague promises, to leave reorganisation to the very distant future.
The object of the Amendment is to ensure that in this industry, which probably as much as any industry requires reorganisation, there shall be a move in that direction as early as possible. I think that all the terrible things that the Parliamentary Secretary said would
happen if the Amendment were carried are very unlikely to happen. The Clause itself says that the industry has to satisfy the Board of Trade that steps are being taken or will be taken; in other words, that the industry must show some obvious sincerity that it is willing to reorganise. The hon. Member for Torquay, having had his gibe at the Opposition, had another one at the benches opposite and suggested that they had laid aside all consideration for the consumer. Among other things that must be taken into consideration by the Board of Trade are the interests of the consumers of sea fish, and I am satisfied that if this Measure achieves what it sets out to do, in all probability there will be a very definite increase in the price of fish. If it is necessary in the interests of those engaged in the industry that prices shall rise, surely three years is a very long period to wait in order to see the effects of this provision, during which time the consumer may be very seriously prejudiced. One cannot but remember that the provision of cheap fish to vast numbers of the working classes is almost a necessity, and anything which tends to make fish dearer, with no redress for three years, seems to be totally unnecessary.
I was interested to notice that the hon. Member for Torquay, after agreeing with all the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend, eventually came to the conclusion that he was unable to support the Amendment and suggested that the period might be altered to two years. While we are very glad of the support of a good many people, we are pleased to be without the support of some hon. Members, and on this occasion we must decline his support without any thanks whatever. I think the information which the Parliamentary Secretary gave us was hardly fair. It gave the impression that the effect of accepting the Amendment would be far more serious than it, would be in fact. I think the effect would be to hurry up the reorganisation of the industry and to satisfy his Department and the Ministry of Agriculture that the reorganisation was proceeding. It has been said over and over again that there is a terrible lag between the prices paid to the fishermen and the prices paid by the consumers, and it is there that some reorganisation is absolutely necessary.
If it should be argued that the effect of inserting one year would be to create the period of uncertainty, I would not be impressed by that argument, because I am satisfied that if during the one year a definite foundation was laid for the reorganisation of the industry, all parties in this House would support the continuance of this Measure and would wish well to the industry. It is because we on these benches fear that, the industry is only concerned about raising the prices that we think that to allow them to go on for three years without some more definite guarantee of the reorganisation of the industry would be wrong. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to see whether he cannot, after all, meet us. We are not moving the Amendment in any carping spirit of criticism, but with the simple desire to do the best we can for the industry, and we believe that the reorganisation of the industry is the best thing that can be done for it.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. HENDERSON STEWART: I am sure the House will accept the assurance of the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Banfield) that there is no carping spirit on the part of the Opposition, but I beg them to realise what would be the practical results of the Amendment, and I feel that they do not quite appreciate the complete truth of the position taken up by the Parliamentary Secretary. The Opposition say that three years is too long, but I am told by those in the fishing industry, who ought to know, that three years is too short a time in which to carry through the complete, radical reorganisation that is needed in the marketing of this product. The Minister asks for three years in which to carry through these measures, and we are now o asked to make it one year. The result of the Amendment, if it were carried, would be that no Order could be made after one year unless there had been or were being taken "such steps"—

Mr. BANFIELD: Some steps.

Mr. STEWART: No. It says:
all such steps … as are practicable and necessary for the efficient reorganisation
and so on. It is not just a step or two steps, but all steps. Hon. Members are asking the Commission, first of all, to report in one year, which is asking a great deal more than is reasonable; and,
further, they are asking the industry within the same period completely to reorganise itself, or at any rate sufficiently so to satisfy my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade and his colleagues. That is not, in my opinion, a reasonable view, and I hope the House, and particularly my hon. 'Friends on the Liberal benches, who, I regret, voted for the last Amendment, will not be overcome either by the dulcet tones of the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) or the confused blandishments of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who never seems to realise quite where he is. At the beginning of his speech he had one foot in the Channel Islands and the other in Torquay. Later, he changed his position. He began by supporting an Amendment for two years, and finished up by supporting an Amendment for one year. For a while he was all against the Commission. He wanted a short, sharp, snappy report, but he finished up by saying that he wanted a thorough piece of work. That kind of support does not seem to me sufficient to warrant this House limiting, and indeed making impossible, the proper carrying through of the Minister's duty under this Measure.

5.30 p.m.

Dr. BURGIN: It is only with the leave of the House that I can say a word in reply to the arguments that have been addressed to the House. It is proposed to set up the Sea-fish Commission and to ask it to commence investigations at once. The right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) said that he hoped the Commission would make an interim report. We hope for something much better than an interim report. We are proposing interim action in the immediate restriction of landing, the selection of the size of fish, and the alteration of the mesh. This action is far better than any interim report of any commission.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I suggested an interim report on marketing.

Dr. BURGIN: The Commission's review of marketing will commence at once. The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) referred to the Report of the Fishing Industry Committee. I
am glad that he did so, but he did not respond to my invitation to read the pieces which I had underlined, and that does not convince me that he is unaware of them. The hon. Member uses that report, anti the deductions contained in it as an argument that, the Sea-fish Commission might make their report within 12 months. It is of interest to the House to know that the Fishing Industry Committee took over two years to make their report. They were appointed on the 25th October, 1929, and their report is dated December, 1931 So far from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness and Sutherland being accurate in suggesting that there is such a plethora of information at the disposal of Government Departments through successive reports that action is now possible, there appears in paragraph 133 of the Scott Report this comment:
Our own experience in the course of our inquiry confirms the need for the proposed investigation, since we have found it difficult to obtain an accurate picture of the fish-marketing structure as a whole. On the statistical side, in particular, we have found serious gaps in the information available with regard to marketing, the deficiencies there contrasting sharply with the abundance of statistical data relating to production and similar matters.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I said that it was the feeling of the fishermen that with all these reports and all the information at the disposal of the Government, there ought to be action on the lines of this marketing board, but I said that in my opinion the Government were right to appoint the Sea-fish Commission.

Dr. BURGIN: Of course, I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's personal attitude in this matter. If there is any feeling in the minds of fishermen that there is so much information now available that it, is simple to act, it is only right that we should call attention to the fact that this Committee, after two years and a portion of a year, reported that there were serious gaps in the information. What does the Committee recommend? I asked the hon. Member for Don Valley to give me the recommendations, and he hesitated. The recommendations were numerous. I take two at random from pages 152 and 153. The Committee recommended that the imposing of restrictions on imports of white fish should he considered by His
Majesty's Government. That recommendation has been carried out by this legislation. They also recommend that as soon as financial conditions permit a systematic marketing inquiry should be undertaken. In other words, having taken a little more than two years to make their Report, they recommend that a further inquiry should be started, and here is this legislation directing the setting up of a Commission to make the inquiry which was recommended by the Scott Report. The Committee took two years and more to arrive at their conclusions recommending certain action, and action is now taken—interim and immediate action—restricting the landings, selecting the size of fish and altering the mesh of the net. In those circumstances, the Amendment limiting the powers of the Board of Trade to one year obviously cannot be accepted.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that paragraph 133 relates to fish-marketing as a whole and to the statistical side of fish-marketing? This Bill does nothing to deal with fish-marketing or with the distribution, the

Division No. 265.]
AYES.
[5.39 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Cook, Thomas A.
Graves, Marjorie


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Cooke, Douglas
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cooper, A. Duff
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Grigg, Sir Edward


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cowan, D, M.
Grimeton, R. V.


Asks, Sir Robert William
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Balllie Sir Adrian W. M.
Cuiverwell, Cyril Tom
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. C. C.
Hamilton, Sir George (Irford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeoll)
Hanley, Dennis A.


Bateman, A. L.
Davison Sir William Henry
Harbord, Arthur


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Dickle, John P.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenn'gt'n)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B.
Donner, P. W.
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Drewe, Cedric
Hornby, Frank


Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Horsbrugh, Florence


Blindell, James
Duggan, Hubert John
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Borodale, Viscount
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Boulton, W. W.
Dunglass, Lord
Hurd, Sir Percy


Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Elliston, Captain George Sampson
Johnston, J. W. (Ciackmannan)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Knight. Holford


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Burghley, Lord
Evans, Capt. Arthur (Cardiff, S.)
Lambert, Rt. Hon. George


Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Law, Sir Alfred


Burnett, John George
Forestler-Walker, Sir Leolin
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brady)
Fox, Sir Gifford
Leckie, J. A.


Chamberlain. Rt. Hon. Sir. J.A. (Birm., W)
Fraser, Captain Ian
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Fuller, Captain A. G.
Levy, Thomas


Christie, James Archibald
Galbraith, James Francis Wallace
Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-


Clarry, Reginald George
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd, Geoffrey


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Golf, Sir Park
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)
MacAndrew, Lieut -Col. C. G. (Partick)


Conant, R. J. E.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)

sale or anything connected with marketing at all. I agree that paragraph 133 left the Committee in doubt as to what the truth of the situation was, but the figures that the Committee obtained will be on record, and surely inside 12 months the Board ought to be able, with the information at their disposal, to come to a conclusion.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I have allowed the hon. Member to interrupt, but he has exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment.

Mr. WILLIAMS: I will not indulge in a. further speech. I only want to point out that paragraph 133 deals exclusively with marketing and has no reference to the organisation of the catching and landing of fish.

Dr. BURGIN: Of course, paragraph 133 applies to marketing, but the Sea-Fish Commission is not limited to that. It covers the whole industry. Their powers are set out in Clause 5.

Question put, "That the words 'three years' stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 216; Noes, 44.

McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothian)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


McKie, John Hamilton
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Rankin, Robert
Summersby, Charles H.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Sutcliffe, Harold


McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Ray, Sir William
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Magnay, Thomas
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Maitland, Adam
Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Titchfieid, Major the Marquess of


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Runge, Norah Cecil
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Milne, Charles
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Morris-Jones, Dr. H. (Denbigh)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Watt, Captain George Steven H.


Morrison, William Shephard
Savery, Samuel Servington
Wayland, Sir William A.


Moss, Captain H. J.
Scone, Lord
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeour


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Selley, Harry R.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Munro, Patrick
Shute, Colonel J. J.
Weymouth, Viscount


Murray-Philipson, Hylton Ralph
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield. Hallam)
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


North, Edward T.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Peat, Charles U.
Soper, Richard
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Perkins, Walter R. D.
Sotheren-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.
Wise, Alfred R.


Pike, Cecil F.
Spender-Clay, Rt. Hon. Herbert H.
Withers, Sir John James


Potter, John
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)



Procter, Major Henry Adam
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Strauss, Edward A.
Sir George Penny and Sir Victor




Warrender.




NOES.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Holdsworth, Herbert
Parkinson, John Allen


Baffield, John William
Janner, Barnett
Rea, Walter Russell


Batey, Joseph
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Kirkwood, David
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A.(Cothness)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Edwards, Charles
Lawson, John James
Thorne, William James


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Leonard, William
Tinker, John Joseph


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Llewellyn-Jones, Frederick
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Griffith, F. Kingsley (Mlddlesbro', W.)
Maclean. Nell (Glasgow, Govan)



Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetr'd)
Mander, Geoffrey le M.
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.


Harris, Sir Percy
Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 10, to leave out from the word "Act" to the word "unless" in line 12, and to insert instead thereof the words:
an order under this Section regulating the landing of sea-fish shall not be made.
This is a drafting Amendment.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think it is hardly right and fair that we should pass over this as a mere drafting Amendment. It is one of those occasions when the Government ought to be congratulated. Over and over again I have rather wondered why the Government put in these words. I notice there is great interest on the part of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, and I hope I am not saying anything which might pain him. I hope it was not done by the hon. Gentleman.
I congratulate the Government on having made this change, for two reasons. In the first place, I think this drafting Amendment is very much better and purer English, and anything which can add to the purity of the English in the Bill is desirable. No doubt the Minister will agree that it would be a pity that he should be responsible for a Bill containing phrases which were not very good English, and I congratulate him on having made the alteration. It is interesting to note, also, that we have made a reduction in the number of words, the benefit of which will be reaped in the printing of further copies of the Bill, and a. loyal supporter of the Government ought not to lose the chance of patting them on the back. I congratulate the Minister on having made one of those minor economies which are so very important at present.
This may not be a very important or substantial Amendment, but it shows that we have a Government working ardently, in the first place, in the cause of the purity of grammar, and, secondly, in the cause of economy. I congratulate the Government sincerely and heartily. I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland takes it so much on his own shoulders; perhaps he found out the original error; though more probably it is the case that the original error crept in through the Scottish Department, and the English Fisheries Department found it out and put it right. I do not mind very much who was responsible; but I congratulate the Government sincerely on having made a minor alteration for the better, because some of their alterations made the Bill so much the worse.

Amendment agreed to.

5.50 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Skelton): I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, to leave our from the word "Kingdom" to the end of Sub-section (4), and to insert instead thereof the words:
or of that branch of the fish-curing industry in the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in whose interests the order is proposed to be made.
This Amendment is a substitution for and an improvement on a passage in the Clause as it stood after having been amended in Committee. The relevant part of the Clause as it stands in the Bill now is as follows
That there have been, or are being, taken all such steps (if any) as are practicable and necessary for the efficient reorganisation of that branch of the sea-fishing industry of the United Kingdom"—
and now follow the words to which the Amendment refers—
which is engaged in catching and landing sea-fish of that description, or, if the order is in respect of cured sea-fish of any description, for the efficient reorganisation of that branch of industry in the United Kingdom which is engaged in the production and sale of cured sea-fish of that description.
Those words are not particularly clear, and the words to be substituted by the Amendment have the advantage, I think, of putting it more clearly by saying:
or of that branch of the fish-curing industry in the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in whose interests the order is proposed to he made.
The point is this. In Sub-section (4) the making of a new Order is dependent upon the relevant reorganisation having been made. If an Order is going to be made putting restrictions upon foreign fresh fish, then such recommendations as to reorganisation as the Sea-fish Commission may have made must have been undertaken, or must be in process of being undertaken, so far as they refer to the actual fishing, but not so far as they may refer to any other branch of the whole fishing industry; because in such a branch the reorganisation proposals would be out of the control of the fishermen, or the producers, and could only be carried out after a poll of the fish salesmen and so on. It would be unfair to make any restriction which was for the purpose of assisting the fishermen dependent upon the carrying out of a reorganisation over which they had no control. Therefore, in the first part of the Clause, which we do not seek to amend, it is made clear that, with regard to the quota for foreign landed fresh fish, the recommendations as to reorganisation are to apply only to the fishermen. Then we come to the question of the cured fish, and in place of the complex and difficult words which were in the Bill originally, and which were not made much more clear by the Amendment inserted in Committee, we now say that where it is a question of putting on a quota for any form of cured fish the reorganisation undertaken shall be the reorganisation of that part of the industry which is benefited by the restriction and no other.
Just to complete the matter, let me say there might be two parts of the fish-curing industry which might be benefited. First of all there are British boats landing wet salted fish, that is, partially cured fish, the curing of which is completed at home in the fish curing establishments. If it is desired to put on a quota for wet salted fish for the benefit of the British boats bringing it in the reorganisation would be reorganisation with regard to them alone, and not reorganisation with regard to the fish curers. Again, it might be the case, though circumstances at present do not require it, that we might wish to put on a quota in respect of completely cured foreign fish. That question does not arise at present, because I understand practically no foreign-cured fish comes in; but if it were desired to put on a quota for the benefit of fish
curers the reorganisation steps which would be necessary before such an Order could be imposed would be reorganisation relevant to the fish-curing establishments. I have taken a little time to make this clear, but the words were difficult in their original form. The Amendment in Committee by which we sought to make the position clear did not, I think, succeed in that object, but now it is perfectly clear that in the case of the fish-curing branch of the industry the reorganisation steps which are necessary there before restrictions are imposed upon the foreigner will be reorganisation steps confined to that branch of the industry which will benefit by the restrictions imposed.

5.55 p.m.

Sir MURDOCH McKENZIE WOOD: The hon. Gentleman has told us that the object of this Amendment is to make the position and the Clause a little clearer. In my opinion the Clause was much clearer before than it will be now. I am inclined to think that the object of the hon. Gentleman was to cover up the tracks which he and his friends made in Committee upstairs. I do not think there can he any doubt as to what the Bill as originally worded meant. It referred to the catching and landing of fish. In Committee upstairs I moved an Amendment to add to the words "catching and landing" the words "and selling," because that was a very obvious omission. The Government have put down what I consider is a very adroit Amendment, because it makes it very difficult indeed to amend it along the lines on which we were proposing to amend the Bill before. I would like the House to consider exactly what it is that this part of the Clause recommends. I do not think there is any real difference in meaning at all, and it is not on that ground that I would object to the Amendment. The fishermen, at any rate, would have understood the original words a great deal better than they will understand the new words.
What is the basis of this Clause, and, indeed, of the Bill. It is that restrictions on the landing of fish, both foreign and home caught, are to be imposed on the distinct understanding that if that is done the industry will reorganise itself. I said upstairs, and I say again, in spite of the suggestion of the Under-Secretary, that no one has ever said or insinuated
or suggested that there is much to be done in the way of improving our catching and landing methods. There is nothing materially wrong with them. If anyone can suggest that there is anything wrong with them I will be the first to say that no fishermen or anyone else engaged in the industry shall get any benefit under the Bill—if he can get any benefit—until he has put things right and acted upon any recommendation of the Sea-fish Commission or any other Commission. But, as was suggested by my hon. Friend opposite on the previous Amendment, what is wrong with the fishing industry at the present time—if there is anything wrong—is not in the catching and landing of the fish but in its sale and marketing. One cannot take up a newspaper without seeing a letter from some housewife complaining about the price she pays for fish at a shop as compared with what the hard-worked fisherman gets for it on the quayside. The object of the Amendment which I wanted to move, and which I think I am entitled to discuss on this Amendment, was to ensure that if there is going to be any reorganisation it should be real reorganisation, such as will be of some benefit to the fishermen. Unless there is some guarantee that we can have a reorganisation of marketing there will he no value to the fishermen at all.
We have heard a great deal about the recommendations of the Scott Committee, which sat for so long and covered such a large part of the ground. It is interesting to notice that, although they covered so much of the ground so very minutely, their recommendations with regard to this matter have been entirely ignored. Practically the only part not ignored was that which said that marketing required further investigation, and that another committee or commission might be set up to go into that matter. Suppose that we had a new Commission to inquire into the question of marketing, and that it made definite recommendations, what is there in this Bill to enable us to say that the benefits of restriction are to come to an end unless those recommendations are carried out? There is nothing in the Bill. My hon. Friends and I put down the Amendment to try to improve the Bill in that way so as to enable the House of Commons and the Government to insist upon the recommendations of the new Commission being carried out.
We have reason to complain of the Government bringing in a comprehensive Bill of this kind to deal with the fishing industry, in that it should have ignored all those recommendations of the Scott Committee. I aim not complaining that they have not put them in here, and all that. I say is that in the next three years, at least, we ought to give the industry an opportunity of reorganisation along the lines of the marketing recommendations, and that at the end of the three years, if the industry has not put that matter right, that the restrictions should be withdrawn. The Under-Secretary said that this is only to benefit the fisherman, that marketing is outside the purview and the control of the fisherman, and that the fisherman ought not to be deprived of the benefit of the Bill seeing that he cannot insist upon fish salesmen or anybody else reorganising marketing. There is something in that, but there is no possibility—this is what the hon. Gentleman does not realise—of fishermen getting any benefit under this Bill, except along the lines of improved marketing. If you keep out of this Bill any provision which would insist an better marketing, the fishermen, and particularly the inshore fishermen, would not get any benefit from it whatsoever.
I ask the Government to go into this matter again. I am quite certain that they desire to help the fishermen, as we all do. Fishermen are a hard-working class of people, and they are certainly not getting their fair share of the proceeds of the work. Several hon. Gentlemen opposite have referred to the recommendations with regard to marketing. I would like to read one little paragraph of the Scott Committee's Report, to show exactly the sort of thing from which the fisherman suffers at the present time. At the top of page 21 the report says:
Another source of discontent to which expression was given in the evidence laid before us is to be found in the present system by which the auctioneer who sells the fish at the port is usually the servant of the owner of the vessel.
Then, in the next paragraph, the report says:
To meet this complaint, we recommend that Parliament should be asked to confer upon the Board of Trade power after inquiry to prescribe by Order in cases of ports where they consider such a course desirable that the sale by auction of trawled fish which affects the settling sheets between owners,
skippers and crews should only be conducted by salesmen independent of the owners of the fishing vessels.
I should have thought that that was a very fair and reasonable recommendation in the interest of the fishermen, and it is the sort of thing which I want the Government to insist upon. As I said before, I do not complain that they have not put it into their Bill, but I complain ii they are going to let their Bill pass from the control of this House without ensuring that, by the end of three years, if this matter has not been put right, Parliament will be able to step in and say that these restrictions and benefits are to cease.
There is another question which very much interests and affects inshore fishermen, particularly in the North of Scotland. It is the system by which fish is sent up on commission to the big markets, such as Billingsgate. We find there that the fish salesmen are at the same time merchants who buy and salesmen who sell. It is impossible—and I am sure that every hon. Member will admit it—for a fisherman to get a fair deal if the man who is selling his fish is buying for himself at the same time. That, again, is something which the Government are bound very soon to take up. A similar situation was tackled with success in Paris, and there is no reason why it should not be tackled here. I agree that it may take a little time to put that matter right, and I am not complaining that it is not done now, but I am complaining that the Government are not arming themselves to insist upon it being done. Therefore, I say that the change which the Government are making, and which is trying to avoid and hide what they did before, is a retrograde step.

6.7 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The people of Scotland are famous for the clear way in which they think and express their thoughts in public, and I am very sorry that that does not apply to the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. It is very difficult to understand what the Amendment means, and it is even more difficult to understand what the Clause itself means, and I am very sorry that the House is still left in the dark as to what we are called upon to do. With the limited power that I have, may I try to
put the point to the hon. Gentleman, in order to see whether I am correct? Do I understand him to say that the curing branch of the fishing industry in this country would only get the advantages of the restriction of the landing of sea-fish if it has reorganised itself within three years? I am under the impression, from what has been said, that is so. I think it could be put thus: No branches of the fishing industry in this country are to get the benefit of the provisions of this Bill—if there are any benefits—unless those branches are reorganised.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether the canning industry comes into the category of fish curing? I notice in the Scott Report, from which the hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) quoted, that fish curing is done on a very large scale in Scotland. I take it that the kippering industry is part of the curing industry. The Government, of course, will want to deal very extensively with the curing of herrings, because they will want a number of red herrings for the next election.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: Whales.

Mr. DAVIES: The figures in regard to the kippering of herrings are rather alarming. The number of barrels of herrings kippered in Scotland in 1921 was 174,494, and the figure had declined to 116,050 by 1930. I would like the hon. Gentleman to tell us a little more as to what is expected of the curing industry by way of reorganisation. It is not sufficient to say that the fishing industry ought to reorganise itself, and to leave it at that. He ought to tell us what he means by reorganisation in the curing industry. I agree entirely with the contention that it does not matter so much what you do in the way of fishing and landing the fish; what matters is the marketing and the sale of the fish. That is pretty obvious to everybody, except to this Government, and they cannot see it at all. They are totally blind to the things that matter in this problem of fishing.
We on this side of the House speak with great authority. We speak with as great authority on the subject as any hon. Member, except the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). He knows about the fishing industry because
he lives in Grimsby. I doubt that he has ever been a fisherman himself. I leave all that aside, in order to say that we are entitled to ask the Government to answer two points. What do they mean by reorganisation in the curing industry? I can understand in broad outline what it means to reorganise the fishing industry—that is to say, to reorganise the number of trawlers, to get rid of overlapping by rationalisation, and all the rest of it—but the reorganisation of the curing industry might be a very different thing. The second point is, will the hon. Gentleman make another attempt to clarify the situation a, little by answering the specific question as to whether I am right in saying that no branch of the curing industry will be entitled to receive the benefits of restriction under this Bill unless they reorganise themselves in the same fashion as the fishing industry as a whole?

6.13 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland did himself an injustice when he said that he had been a little involved, because I am sure that no hon. Member—I am speaking for the average Member of the House, and not for the abnormal Members—will disagree when I say that he was exceptionally clear for any Member speaking from any Front Bench at any time. It is difficult to conceive the type of mind which could possibly have misunderstood him. There is only one sentence of his to which I would refer, and that was when he informed the House that this Amendment was a substitution and an improvement. I do not think that he needed to inform the House that this is a substitution for the other words, because that is almost obvious. I put this point quietly, because it does not really matter. It is obvious to most of us that, if you cut out some words and put in some more, these are substituted. That is the only place where he could have conceivably blamed himself.
The hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) said that up to the point where the fish are landed the organisation of the industry is complete. I will agree with him in this way, that as you get farther South you get better and better men. That is a matter of nationality into which I will not go. At any rate, you have first-class men who thoroughly
know their job, and the industry is probably as efficient as any that could be found. The hon. Gentleman, indeed, said that that was so, and, if the industry is efficient in every way, it means that we need never fear that there will be any demand from any fishing fleet anywhere, even in Scotland, for grants for new fishing boats, and so on. There must, however, be improvements of gear from time to time, and many of us would like to see further improvements in the organisation of the industry. For instance, it would be a tremendous improvement if we could get better and faster boats. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has seen that point, and, at any rate, he has disqualified himself and all the other Scottish Members from ever asking for any grants in the future. I do not think that the Members for fishing constituencies should be disqualified in that way, but that my hon. Friend should have been rather more cautious.
He made the point that this Amendment was the result of a sort of composition arrived at in Committee, before the powers that be were able to see how it worked out in print. The words, as they have now been approved by the Government's draftsman, are clearer, simpler and shorter. As regards the purpose of the words, while I have no desire to admit anything in this matter, we do realise that the object of this part of the Clause is to ensure that, unless the canning or curing industry brings its machinery and its whole organisation up to date, it will not get the advantage of Orders, or any advantage which Orders may be conceived to bring in. Before, however, the Government put down a statement of this kind, they ought to make it clear whether or not the canning and curing industries in this country are efficient. The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is not able to take part in this Debate, but I bitterly resent the remarks which have been made to the effect that the herring-curing industry in Grimsby and other places is not thoroughly efficient and well organised. I believe it is amazingly efficient and well organised, and I want the Government to give an assurance that they are not going to interfere with it needlessly and disturb the whole organisation of the industry.
I want to see the canning industry advance enormously in some parts of the country; I want to see it organised on the best and most secure foundation, though not necessarily on too large a scale. The Government have told us nothing as to how it is going to be reorganised. It is true that there is to be a, sort of commission, but, with all the knowledge that there is on the Front Government Bench, I think we might have had one or two hints as to how it may be possible to bridge the gap between the landing and the consumption of fish. There must be some knowledge available which would enable that to be done without any further delay, and I think it ought to be made public whenever that is possible. The Government, both in Committee and here in the House, missed a chance when they were challenged, as they have been by the Socialist Members, to indicate the lines on which they think the industry could be reorganised. As far as the Amendment is concerned, I think it is an improvement, but I think the Government might have taken this opportunity to give some indication of the line which they must have in their minds as to how the fishing industry could reorganise itself. Cooperation between the fishing people 'and the sellers for the purpose of trying to eliminate unnecessary expenses is one of the ways in which improvement could be effected. Would the Government consider that to be a thing which they could help and encourage 7 If the Government would give an assurance that they would encourage such co-operation, many of us who are closely interested in the industry, and know how essential its reorganisation is, would be very glad, and would hope that it would lead to successful results.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am sure that everyone present, after the very lucid and clear speech,of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), will feel no further doubt about the meaning of the Amendment. I think we ought to compliment the hon. Member on his special clarity, which must be almost comparable with the sun that shines in Torquay. With regard to the Amendment, I think there is no alternative but to delete these words and insert some such words as those on the Paper. While, under Clause 5, the Sea-fish Commission have
power to examine every phase of the industry, including distribution and sale, the word "sale," as applied in Clause 1 to the curing industry, excludes by implication the doing of anything for the white fish section of the industry in regard to distribution or sale, and to that extent I think the hon. Gentleman has done the only thing that it was in his power to do. I am not going to oppose the Amendment; I would not appeal to the hon. Gentleman to change the wording of the Amendment or the intention of the Government; but if, between now and the next stage of any Bill that may be brought before the House, he would employ the civil servants at the Ministry of Agriculture or some other Department to supply a really useful brief to the hon. Member for Torquay, he would be doing something really valuable.

6.23 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Although I do not represent a fishing constituency, I have had the pleasure of studying this matter for the greater part of my life. As regards the reorganisation of the industry, which is so much desired by my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), the one thing that is required in the way of reorganisation of the industry to enable the fishermen to sell their fish is to help them to sell their fish in the inland towns. No Government has ever done anything to help the distribution of fish in the towns and villages of the country. The consumption of fish by the population of Britain is only a few ounces per head per annum. It is astonishing how little fish is eaten in the inland towns. Even in the county of Norfolk, I have found a large number of villages and towns where there was great difficulty even in getting supplies of ordinary herrings from Yarmouth. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland should address himself to taking steps, whether by the use of refrigerating machinery or by means of better railway carriage, to get the products of the fishing industry from the ports into the inland towns. I do not know whether he has taken any steps to interview the railway companies, or the people at Billingsgate or other places where fish is collected for sale. I am certain that, if it is desired to increase the sale of fish in this country, and to make
this country to a greater degree independent of the necessity of sending salted herrings to Russia, the first thing to be done is to take steps to see that fish can be brought into English and Scottish towns and villages with much greater facility than is the case at present.

6.26 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Surely we are going to have a reply from the Government 1 The apology of the Under-Secretary for this Amendment was characteristically graceful, but perfectly inadequate. There are several matters which have not been explained. I should like to draw attention to the last few words of the Amendment:
in whose interests the Order is proposed to be made.
I think it is deplorable that the House of Commons should be reduced to legislating, in terms, on behalf of particular interests. The only sound basis for legislation in this House is the public interest as a whole, and I repeat that I think it is deplorable that we should be called upon to use language of that kind. A number of really important points have been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood) and other hon. Members, and, though I can well understand how grateful the Government are for the never-failing support of the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) on every Amendment which comes under discussion, I feel sure—

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If I may interrupt the right hon. Baronet for a moment, I would point out that I have not supported them on every Amendment; I myself moved an Amendment against them.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I should have said that my hon. Friend never fails to give the House the benefit of his advice on every Amendment, and generally gives his support to the Government. But the House as a whole will hardly regard his defence of the Amendment as adequate, and I would ask that we should be given some reply on these points by the Government.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: Let me, first of all, answer the two questions which were put by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). I did not rise to do so before, because I thought that there might be another opportunity. The hon.
Member asked: Is canning included in curing? The answer is "Yes." His second question was: What exact steps do we contemplate with regard to the reorganisation of the curing industry? The answer to that question is to be found in the actual Sub-section with which we are dealing. It is that all questions of reorganisation are, by this Bill, being put in the charge of the Sea-fish Commission. The House will recollect that the Bill has two stages. First of all, there is the period of three years during which there will be restriction of foreign imports, in return for definite provisions with regard to mesh, district, and size of fish landed. That is chapter one. Chapter two is reached when the three years are ended, and that is the matter referred to in the Sub-section.
The qualifications for new restrictions in the new period are that any recommendations that the Sea-fish Commission may have made with regard to any steps which are practicable and necessary for the efficient reorganisation of that branch of the industry shall have been, or shall be in the course of being, carried out. The question as to what the practicable and necessary steps are is being left to the Sea-fish Commission which is an almost exact analogy to the agricultural commissions which figure in the Agricultural Act, 1931. The Amendment is really only a change of words and not a change of sense. If you are to have foreign restriction, you must have reorganisation. What reorganisation? Is it to be reorganisation over which the fishermen have control or reorganisation over which only the Government will have control? The principle of the Sub-section is to make certain that, whether you are dealing; with fresh fish or the cured fish branch of the industry, the restrictions imposed upon foreign imports shall be the sequel to reorganisation over which the fishermen have control. The technical difficulty was caused by matters connected with the wet salted fish. The principle that we have worked out—and I believe we have worked it out in words now perfectly beyond reproach as far as clarity is concerned—is that it shall be reorganisation which the fishermen can bring about. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that the new language had got us into some area of graft and corruption. It obviously bears no such meaning. It is an exact reproduction of
words already existing in the Agricultural Marketing Act.

6.35 p.m.

Sir R. HAMILTON: Our complaint and regret is that what the Government are proposing to do, we fear, will not benefit the fishermen. We are satisfied that the only thing that can benefit them is this question of reorganisation of marketing being dealt with. I am afraid many fishermen will be disappointed. They will have been led to believe that they are going to get great advantages from the restrictive Orders that may be passed, but anyone who has studied the working of the industry knows that the only way in which they can be benefited is by bringing down the big break between the cost of fish landed on the quay and the cost that the producer has to pay in the inland markets. Until that is tackled, I am afraid the fishermen will go empty handed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 24, at the end, insert the words:
() Any order regulating the landing of sea-fish which is made under this section before the end of the period of three years from the commencement of this Act shall, if not previously revoked, cease to have effect at the end of that period unless each House of Parliament has passed a resolution approving the continuance in force of the order."—[Major Elliot.]

CLAUSE 2.—(Prohibition of landing of sea-fish caught in certain areas during certain, seasons).

6.38 p.m.

Mr. LEONARD: I beg to move, in page 3, line 10, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that no order shall be made under this section unless the appropriate Ministers are satisfied that adequate supplies of sea-fish at reasonable prices will be available.
The intention of this Clause and the next is to restrict fish coming to our ports, and the next Clause affects the mesh of the nets, a method of conserving the fish in the sea which will be supported by everyone. I cannot say the same with regard to the form of restriction contained in this Clause, and, because of the danger to consumers, we are proposing this Amendment, which will prevent action on the part of the Board of Trade unless one specific point is recognised, namely, that there shall be
an adequate supply at reasonable prices. I am informed by those competent to guide me in the matter that this class of fish has in the past created a special type of trade which was a stand-by enjoyed by the poorer sections of the community. We were told on many occasions in Committee that the interests of consumers had to be protected, but that was rather a general statement. The poor to whom I refer are in such a state that any increase in price at all means no fish for them.
The hon. Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel) stated that one of the problems was to get the fish to the inland towns. Some three years ago an effort was made to deal with this class of fish coming from Northern waters, and it was packed in boxes of two and three lbs. for despatch to inland towns. A considerable amount of success attached to the experiment, and sales went up. Then we saw prices rise. I was told that they increased by about 50 per cent., and in some quarters there was a decline of trade of no less than 66 per cent. There is less sale now than there was at the inception of the scheme. There has been in recent years a considerable change in the dietary of the people, which includes fish in a greater measure than it previously did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) gave figures in Committee showing that the price of retail fish was out of all proportion to the reduction that has taken place in the all-in prices of food. That is even more important when we consider the alteration in the weight that must be given to determine the importance of fish in the diet. To refer to the figures that applied in 1914 is not good enough, because the figures of weight in the dietary of 1914 do not apply to-day. Much more is expected in this form of food than in those days. For that reason, we wish it to be a specific instruction to the Board of Trade that, before giving protection to the industry, there shall be adequate supplies, so that there shall not be hardship imposed on the poorer sections of the country through an increase of prices.

6.44 p.m.

Mr. C. BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.
In this Measure and some of his other Measures the Minister is embarking on a highly questionable experiment, and the situation that will be created will want some very careful watching, otherwise conditions may arise in which adequate supplies of fresh fish at reasonable prices will not be available. The acceptance of the Amendment will give the best assurance that the situation will be watched very carefully all the time and that, as the result of the experiment upon which he is embarking, the consumer will not be exploited.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. JANNER: I rise to support the Amendment. I feel, as do my hon. Friends, that it is of the utmost importance that the interests of the consumers should be safeguarded with regard to the question of supplies. The consumption of fish by people in the poorer districts, in spite of the figures which have been given by the hon. Member on the benches above the Gangway, constitutes a very large item as far as household needs are concerned. We are anxious that this customer of the fishing industry should not be adversely affected, and that the supply of this food should be available to the fullest extent to the man-in-the-street—to the poor man who has no other opportunity on most occasions of getting a square meal. The fried fish shop supplies a very definite need to those who live in the poorer districts, and in many cases to those who live in the alleged higher-class districts in our towns. We are particularly anxious that those shops should not be deprived of their supplies or even put into a position of considerable difficulty in obtaining supplies. In those circumstances we feel that a precautionary phrase or sentence of this description should be put into the Bill so that we may be assured that their interests are being watched.

6.47 p.m.

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I hope that my hon. Friends will not press the Amendment. It is not necessary to insert such an instruction as this in the Bill. If hon. Members will look at line 1 of the Clause they will see that it is after consultation with the Board of Trade that an order can be made. The Board of Trade is specially charged in the Bill with
looking after the interests of the consumers. They cannot look after the interests of the consumers unless they are satisfied that there is an adequate supply of fish available for the consumers. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Janner) referred to the fish-fryers, and I agree with him that they are a very important section of this industry. Over 40 per cent. of the white fish landed in this country is cooked in the fried fish shops and supplied to the poorer people. The area covered by the Order under the Clause, and the period of the year, mean that fish will be restricted as regards the landings when that fish is not of the quality that we desire the working people of this country to consume. Adequate supplies will be available from every quarter of the ocean, because at that time of the year there is no shortage in any part. I am satisfied that it would be foolish to put a definite instruction such as this into the Bill and, seeing that already provision is made in other parts of the Bill, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I am not sure that we can accept fully the point of view expressed by the hon. Member fox Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). I appreciate, after what he said upstairs, that this particular kind of fish, being, as the Minister stated, a very large kind and of very cheap quality, and brought on to the market in the middle of the summer and tending to glut the market, may greatly depress prices, assuming that all the fish is sold for human consumption. This was the very substantial point submitted by the hon. Member, who also told us that a good deal of the fish is made into fish-meal and manure, and so forth, and does not find its way into either the fried fish and chip shops or the homes of the people. But we are rather suspicious of everything which is not included in the printed word of an Act of Parliament. We would prefer to see some specific responsibility placed upon the appropriate Ministries, so that this prohibition, which may be for one, two, three, four or five months, shall not be used by the trawler companies to exploit the consumer unduly. We are as anxious as anybody that no untoward incident by recalcitrant trawler owners, or by blacklegs, to put it in the trade union term,
should undermine any organisation which may exist within the trawler companies.
There is another point which we must never forget. It is very desirable to cultivate the consumption of fish to-day. From 1919 to 1930 the consumption of fish per person per annum was constantly on the increase. In 1919 we consumed slightly in excess of 21 lbs. per bead, and by 1930 we were consuming no less than 39 lbs. per head. But in 1931 and 1932 imports from foreign countries by foreign trawlers was reduced by somewhere between 400,000 and 500,000 cwts. Curiously enough, in 1932 the consumption of fish in this country declined by 2 lbs. per head, or approximately about 440,000 cwts.—practically the quantity which was not available from foreign sources. These things tell their own story. The imports from foreign sources having decreased by nearly 500,000 cwts. in a year, our consumption went down to that extent. We therefore fell from 39.1 lbs. per head in 1930, to 37.1 lbs. per head in 1932, exactly 2 lbs. The granting of permission to prohibit landing of fish during certain seasons means, we are informed, that it applies to 500,000 cwts. We must therefore conclude that next year there will be another reduction of 2 lbs. per head in consumption, and we shall be down from 37 lbs. to 35 lbs. per head.
As the supply diminishes, obviously the price will tend to increase. What we invite the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries to do at the moment is as follows: By all means let them indulge in these experiments if they deem it wise-to do so, but they must not forget that there are more than 40,000,000 people dependent upon the quantities of fish which determine the price. If supplies are reduced to a certain point so that prices exceed a certain limit, it will cut off a huge layer of the poorer consumers. It may very well be that their second state will be worse than their first. We do not object to the experiments of the right hon. Gentleman. I think that the Government have submitted substantial reasons why power should be put into their hands for this purpose, and because of my trade union connection I appreciate the putting of power into the hands of the central authority, but the power having been granted, we ask that it shall be used with the utmost discretion, always bearing in mind the in-
terests of the great multitude of fish eaters in this country. Instead of the consumption being less, it would be better for the health of the people if they, perhaps, consumed more fish. The Amendment is very inoccuous, reasonable and desirable, and if the Government would give us a meed of comfort by watching events and, at the moment supplies are not available at reasonable prices, withdrawing their Order prohibiting the imports from those areas, they would meet not only the wishes of all Members of the House, but would grant a degree of security to the vast multitude of fish-consumers in this country.

6.56 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I desire to say a few words in support of the Amendment from the point of view of my constituents, who are far remote from any sea-shore and right in the centre of England. Their catching of fish is on a very limited scale. It may be that occasionally they pass the time away by going to the canals and there doing their best to secure bream, roach, perch and even pike, not forgetting the stickleback. I do not think that even the Bill endeavours to deal or to interfere in any way with innocent pastimes of that kind. I can imagine that the Government may have in mind plans for controlling, and even of interfering with the pleasures and pastimes of the people, but that is not included in this Bill. My constituents are very closely interested in the consumption of fish, and they purchase it to a very large extent through the medium of the fried fish shop. I understand that the fish chiefly used there before the War was plaice, but that now larger fish are cut up for the purpose, such as cod, hake, whiting and skate. They are fried in association with potatoes, and are commonly known as fish and chips. But quite apart from that particular way of eating fish, fresh haddock is also very largely consumed by those who have small sums of money to spend in purchasing foodstuffs.
It will make a great deal of difference to many poor people in my constituency if as the result of this Measure the price of fish is in any way raised. It is an essentially reasonable and wise proposal that words of this kind should be included in the Bill, so that there can be some protection from the point of view of the consumer. There will be immense
pressure from the trade, and commercial and vested interests, who want the price of fish to go up, and who want as much in the way of quota and exclusion of fish as can possibly be arranged. There is also the point of view of the millions of people interested from the other angle. It wholly interests my constituents, and a vast number of people all over the country. I hope, therefore, that, if the Minister is not able to accept these words, he will give us a most definite and binding assurance that no scheme will be authorised which is likely to occasion any unreasonable rise in price, though one would prefer that there should be none at all. If he can give an assurance that there will be safeguards against exorbitant charges, it will go some way at any rate, towards satisfying those who have great anxieties in this connection. The Minister, if he intends to say anything will, I hope, be able to give some assurance of that kind. If not, I must enter a protest on behalf of my very poor and struggling, but admirable constituents in relation to what may be against their interest.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS: If the hon. Member had been here a few minutes earlier, he would have heard the statement of the Lord of the Treasury. The hon. Gentleman's own fishermen will not come under the Bill, and the hon. Gentleman can be perfectly satisfied that his salmon fishing is definitely exempt from the Bill. I hope I shall not cause offence. I quite agree with the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) when he said earlier that what is really wanted in this country is a vastly increased consumption of fish. The hon. Member has at last discovered that, and I congratulate him most sincerely on the discovery. It is interesting, and it is novel, especially coming from the Labour benches, but it has been the whole basis of the capitalist system to increase consumption by whatever action is possible. My hon. Friend below me, when he attains to the industry and celerity of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Don Valley, will make these discoveries in due course. I do not know whether I can explain the matter as well as the hon. Member for Don Valley did, but, as there is just a chance that the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) may support the Government, I must do my best,
as a supporter, to get him to give his vote for the Government. It is the duty of the Government, as has been explained, to endeavour to see that there is an adequate supply of fish coming into this country.
We have had some curious speeches. We have had a speech from the hon. Member for Whitechapel (:Mr. Tanner) laying it down clearly that this Amendment was a, "cautionary phrase." He said that, by putting in this cautionary phrase, we would in some way get the Government to see that there was a real supply of fish in this country. Frankly, I say that that is an exceedingly interesting and novel proposition, coming from the Liberal party—that by putting a Clause into a Bill you can have an adequate supply of fish for the people of this country. It is known that the supply of fish is really one of the most difficult things to regulate. It is dependent on storms, and on very many things of that kind. I would ask those gentlemen who think they can regulate it in this way to realise that, whatever a Government can do, they can never have regular supplies. The only thing the Government can do is what they are doing under this Subsection, for the only way to get a regular, adequate, and good supply of fish is to make it reasonably profitable, and to give

Division No. 266.]
AYES.
[7.8 p.m.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Grundy, Thomas W.
Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot


Banfield, John William
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Mender, Geoffrey le M.


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Holdsworth, Herbert
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George.
Janner, Barnett
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Jenkins, Sir William
Rea, Walter Russell


Dagger, George
John, William
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Edwards, Charles
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, William James


Evans, R. T. (Carmarthen)
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Lanebury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Foot Isaac (Cornwall, Bodmin)
Leonard, William
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
Logan, David Gilbert
Williams, Thomas (York., Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Lunn, William
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
McEntee, Valentine L.
Young, Ernest J. (Middlesbrough, E.)


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton



Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES—




Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Groves.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.


Agnen, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Broadbent, Colonel John


Albery, Irving James
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.


Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent)
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B.(Portsm'th, C.)
Brown, Ernest (Leith)


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Blaker, Sir Reginald
Burnett, John George


Aske, Sir Robert William
Borodale, Viscount
Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)


Astbury, Lieut,-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Boulton, W. W.
Caporn, Arthur Cecil


Balllie Sir Adrian W. M.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Cassels, James Dale

good wages to the fishing industry so that people in that industry can go to sea.

The hon. Member for Don Valley gave a long list of figures proving that supplies bad increased up to a point, and that since then they had dropped. He did not explain that in the middle of the period a change came, for the Socialist Government were in power. They came into power somewhere about that time. The present Government, with all their ability, and anxiety to help, are doing exactly the right thing, and that is why I am trying to encourage them to-day. They are bringing in a Bill which, I think, will give a, great deal of encouragement to the development of fishing—not for the overproduction of small fish, but for the production of bigger and larger fish. I would ask the hon. Gentlemen who think there is something in this Amendment to realise that by putting in a few words you cannot in any way hope to produce more fish or assist the industry. For that reason I hope that this Amendment, which has been gone into and examined by the House, will be turned down. I support the Government in not adding, and not wishing to add, these entirely unnecessary words to the Clause.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 52; Noes, 209.

Chapman, Sir Samuel (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurst, Sir Gerald B.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Christie, James Archibald
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Clarke, Frank
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Salt, Edward W.


Clarry, Reginald George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Samuel, Sir Arthur Michael (F'nham)


Clayton, Sir Christopher
Ker, J. Campbell
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Selley, Harry R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Law, Sir Alfred
Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.


Collins, Rt. Hon. Sir Godfrey
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.
Leckie, J. A.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Conant, R. J. E.
Lees-Jones, John
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cook, Thomas A.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cooke, Douglas
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Copeland, Ida
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Cowan, D. M.
Little, Graham-, Sir Ernest
Smithers, Waldron


Crooke, J. Smedley
Llewellin, Major John J.
Soper, Richard


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lloyd, Geoffrey
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Cross, R. H.
Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Spent, William Patrick


Culverwell, Cyril Tom
MacAndrew, Lt.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Someraet, Yeovll)
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
McKie, John Hamilton
Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Dickle, John P.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Strauss, Edward A.


Donner, P. W.
Mooney, Thomas
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton


Drewe, Cedric
Maitland, Adam
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Duncan, James A.L. (Kensington, N.)
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Dunglass, Lord
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Summersby, Charles H.


Eastwood, John Francis
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Sutcliffe, Harold


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Tate, Mavis Constance


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)


Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Milne, Charles
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Moreing, Adrian C.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Morrison, William Shepherd
Turton, Robert Hugh


Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin
Muirhead, Major A. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Fox, Sir Gifford
Munro, Patrick
Wallace, Captain D. E. (Hornsey)


Fraser, Captain Ian
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Nicholson, Rt. Hn. W. G. (Petersf'ld)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wailsend)


Ganzoni, Sir John
Penny, Sir George
Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.


Gluckstein, Louis Halle
Perkins, Walter R. D.
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Gower, Sir Robert
Petherick, M.
Wedderburn, Henry James Scrymgeous


Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Graves, Marjorie
Pete, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilst'n)
Weymouth, Viscount


Greaves-Lord, Sir Waiter
Pike, Cecil F.
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Potter, John
Whyte, Jardine Bell


Grigg, Sir Edward
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Grimston, R. V.
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Guy, J. C. Morrison
Ramsay, Capt. A. H. M. (Midlothlan)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)


Hanbury, Cecil
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George


Hanley, Dennis A.
Rankin, Robert
Wise, Alfred R.


Harbord, Arthur
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Withers, Sir John James


Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Rawson, Sir Cooper
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Womersley, Walter James


Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)


Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.



Hornby, Frank
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Horsbrugh, Florence
Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)
Runge, Norah Cecil
and Sir Frederick Thomson.

Amendment made: In page 3, line 12, leave out the words "may be dealt with" and insert instead thereof the words "shall be treated."—[Major Elliot.]

7.15 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I beg to move, in page 3, line 34, at the end, to insert the words:
Provided that a notice under this subsection shall not be taken to require the making or delivery of any declaration in respect of the landing of any sea-fish after the end of the period of six months from the date on which the notice is served.
() Where any sea-fish are brought to land in the United Kingdom in any vessel,
any British sea-fishery officer may, at any time before the vessel next puts out to sea, request the master to make, in respect of any of those sea-fish which have been, or are being, or are about to be, landed from the vessel during a period specified in an order in force under this section, a written declaration that the sea-fish in question are not sea-fish the landing of which is prohibited by the order, and to deliver the declaration to the officer or to such person, or at such place, in the port of landing as he may designate.
Nothing in this sub-section shall be taken to affect the operation of the last foregoing sub-section.

The group of Amendments which I am about to move concern the machinery necessary for the carrying out of the
prohibitions on the landing of sea-fish, which is the main topic of Clause 2. will deal with the Amendments together, because they form one consecutive story. The main point of the machinery is the giving of notice to the master of the vessel or other person that he must make a declaration as to where the fish. comes from. In Sub-section (3), line 25, hon. Members will see outlined the general system of giving notice, which is that the sea-fishery officer may give notice to the master of any vessel, in writing, requesting him to make on each occasion that any sea-fish are about to be landed a declaration that they have not come from prohibited areas. That is the general method that will be adopted and that will result in a prior notice being given by the responsible authority warning the masters that they must make such declarations. That brings me to the first Amendment.

The Amendment that we make in regard to that part of the machinery is that any such notice given by the sea-fishery officer, that a declaration will be required on the appearance of each vessel in port, is only to last for six months. At the end of that period a notice must again be given by the sea-fishery officer. That is a sound provision, because it brings to the notice of the persons concerned their liability and duty from time to time, instead of the authorities only having to draw attention to these requirements once in a number of years. The Amendment provides that a notice under the Sub-section shall not be taken to require the making or delivery of any declaration in respect of the landing of any sea-fish after the end of six months. That is the normal procedure, but it is necessary to reinforce the normal procedure with respect to a declaration that the fish has not come from a prohibited area, with an ad hoc or emergency procedure in case a boat comes into port which has not received the general normal notice. That is provided in the second part of the first Amendment.

The next Amendment is only a drafting Amendment. It puts into one subsection a matter which had been previously contained in Sub-sections (4) and (5). I need say nothing more about that. The third Amendment of the group, to leave out Sub-sections (5) and
(6) and to insert other words, merits a few words of explanation, particularly as I hope and believe that it covers to a very large extent the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Dumbartonshire (Commander Cochrane)—In page 4, line 11, to leave out the words "the owner of the vessel," and to insert instead thereof the words:
any person nominated by the Master to receive such notice.

An important point of our Amendment is that the notice under the ordinary procedure which is given to the master is treated as being given to the master of the vessel if it is served upon the owner or upon the agent of the owner, and not only upon owner or his agent but upon the charterer or the agent of the charterer. The importance of making the agent of the owner or the agent of the charterer a proper recipient of the notice that the declaration must be given, is that the owners will be able to appoint their agents at the fishing ports who will in the ordinary course of events receive the notice, and it will not be necessary to trace the owner to his lair. I think that explanation covers the whole scope of the Amendments, and I trust that my hon.. and gallant Friend will find that a point which we all feel is substantial is covered by what I have said.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 41, at the end, insert the words:
and if the master of any vessel fails to make, in respect of any sea-fish, a declaration in accordance with the requirements of a notice duly served on him under this section or in accordance with a request duly made under this section by a British sea-fishery officer, as the case may be, the said sea-fish shall be presumed until the contrary is proved to be sea-fish the landing of which is prohibited under this section.

In line 42, leave out Sub-sections (5) and (6), and insert instead thereof the words:
() "A notice under sub-section (3) of this section relating to any vessel may be addressed to "The Master" of the vessel (identifying it by name or otherwise), and shall be deemed to be duly served if it is delivered or sent by post to, or to the agent of, the owner or the charterer (if any) of the vessel, together with a written request that it be transmitted to the master, and, if the notice is served by being so delivered or sent as aforesaid, it shall be deemed to
be served on the master of the vessel for the time being and on every other person who at any material time thereafter is the master of the vessel."—[ Mr. Skelton.]

CLAUSE 3.—(Construction, and size of mesh, of nets carried in British sea-fishing boats.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, after the word "of," to insert the words "any part of."
This is a drafting Amendment, in view of the fact, that we also include the coast of Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 42, leave out the words "net to be forfeited," and insert instead thereof the words:
forfeiture of the net in respect of which the contravention occurred.— [Major Elliot.]

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 5, line 32, at the end, to insert the words:
(8) His Majesty may by Order in Council direct—

(a) that, subject to such exceptions, modifications, and adaptations, if any, as may be specified in the order, the foregoing provisions of this section shall apply in relation to British fishing boats registered in the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands as they apply in relation to British fishing-boats registered in the United Kingdom;
(b) that, subject as aforesaid, the said provisions shall extend to the Isle of Man or to any of the Channel Islands." 
This Amendment refers to a discussion we had a little earlier. The objects of the Amendment are (1) to ensure that regulations made in relation to British fishing boats registered in the United Kingdom shall apply to British fishing boats registered in the Channel Island or the Isle of Man and, (2) to make that offences against the regulations committed the high seas shall be punishable in the courts of the island and this provision is applied in the common form, namely, by Order in Council.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Provisions as to Orders.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 9, line 6, after the word "Act," to insert the words:
not being an Order in Council.
Since it is not customary to require the laying of an Order in Council before Parliament, we are inserting these words.

Amendment agreed to.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 9, line 8, to leave out from the word "Parliament," to the end of Subsection (2), and to insert instead thereof the words:
() As soon as may be after any order, not being an Order in Council, is made under this Act, the authority making the order shall, in such manner as that authority thinks best for informing persons concerned, publish a notice stating that the order has been made, and specifying the place where copies of the order may be purchased.
This Amendment is to enable orders to be brought to the notice of persons affected thereby.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Definition of terms and exercise of powers.)

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in page 10, line 13, at the end, to insert the words:
British sea-fishery officer' means any person who is a British sea-fishery officer by virtue of section eleven of the Sea-Fisheries Act, 1883.

This is merely inserting a definition.

Amendment agreed to.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. WOMERSLEY (Lord of the Treasury): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I am sure that my hon. Friends in all parts of the House will agree with me when I say that to have the honour of moving the Third Reading of a Bill designed to benefit the great sea-fishing industry is one of which they must envy me, in view of the fact that I represent the largest fishing port in the world. I am especially pleased, because this is the first time that any Government has really recognised that there is such a thing as a fishing industry in this country. It is true that we have from time to time had commissions and committees of inquiry into the conditions ruling in the fishing industry, but nothing has come in the way of legislation. We have to go back to 1883 for any Act of Parliament specially dealing with the sea-fishing industry, but that did not take into account any of the matters affecting the trawling section of the industry but was enacted to deal with the inshore fishermen. Looking back to 1883 and comparing the industry of that day with the industry of to-day, we note that a real revolution has taken place.
There has been no legislation during that period. In spite of the fact that many people say that we should be better in this country without legislation, I suggest that the fishing industry would have been ail the better if legislation had been forthcoming carrying into effect the recommendations made by the committees and commissions to which I have referred.
No Government until the present one has thought it wise or has had the time to introduce a Measure dealing with this great industry, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries has had the courage to tackle the problem. There is a reason why Governments of the past have not been too anxious to undertake the work of doing something by legislation on behalf of the sea-fishing industry, and that is that the industry presents peculiar problems, which are in many instances sectional problems. The real point of this Bill to be considered by anyone dealing with the matter is how can legislation be brought into this House and carried into effect that will meet the varying objections of the varying sections of the industry. You have the catching side of the industry, which includes the trawler owners, the inshore fishermen and the men who man the boats. Then you have the merchanting side of the business, including the coastal merchants and the inland merchants, both sections with their own peculiar problems and difficulties. Then we have to consider the retailer, a very important section of the industry, and consideration has to be given to the consumer.
To ensure that a Bill is going to be satisfactory to all these various interests would appear to be an impossible task, but I am glad to say that my right hon. Friend had the courage to tackle the impossible, or what some people thought was an impossibility, and has produced this Measure, which I am glad to say has been received with approval from all parts of the House so far as the general principles underlying it are concerned. Even His Majesty's Opposition have given kind consideration to the main principles underlying the Bill. It is true that we have had little differences of opinion on certain matters. Some hon. Members have thought that we are not going as far as we ought to go in certain directions, but, at any rate, we have had
general agreement, and it is indeed a Measure which ought to receive the full approval of the House.
In the explanatory Memorandum the objects of the Bill are set out. They are to regulate the quantity and improve the quality of the supplies of fish coming into the British market, so as to restore prices at the port to a more remunerative level. That is the problem which the Minister had to face. There are many ways in which he might have accomplished part of that object, but it required a carefully thought out Measure to deal with the problem as a whole, bearing in mind those points which I have already mentioned as well as the interests of the public and the consumers, which must be taken into full consideration. And, indeed, the Minister has had to have the interests of the consumers in mind right through the whole of our discussions. The Bill, as hon. Members are no doubt aware, deals with many sides of the industry to bring about that which is desired—namely, that those who go down to the sea in ships should receive a fair remuneration for their work. Although it is true, as the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. R. Davies) has said, that I am not a fisherman, I have been connected with the fishing industry and worked among these men for the greater part of my life. I have had experience not only of the retail but of the wholesale side of the business, and I know a good deal about the brave and gallant men who man the boats.
I suggest that it was indeed a laudable object of my right hon. and gallant Friend to bring about better conditions for the men who face the dangers of the far North in the winter. Let hon. Members contemplate what it means, right away by the North Cape and in the regions about Greenland in the winter time, along the rocky coast of Iceland and remember that when they land their catch the amount they receive in the case of the skipper and the mate is nothing whatever for their three or four weeks of arduous toil, and in the case of the deck hands and engineers all that they will receive will be their weekly wage. As far as any bonus is concerned, nothing at all. These men, who have been to these regions again and again, settle in the industry in debt, and if the tide turns and they get a good voyage the money
is bespoken already. It was time that the Minister came to their rescue; and I am delighted to think that it is my right hon. and gallant Friend who has put all this energy into this work.
The Bill deals with restrictions on foreign supplies. Here again there is general agreement, not in the House but agreement as between the nations concerned and ourselves. I think it is a remarkable achievement for the Government to bring in a Measure imposing restrictions on foreign supplies by agreement with the countries themselves. That is something really remarkable, and should commend itself to the House. We also have restrictions on the landings of our fishermen and foreign fishermen from certain areas at certain times of the year. That has been brought about by agreement between the Department and the industry, and I want to assure the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) that the figure of 500,000 cwts. of fish which he mentioned as being taken off the market as a result of the operation of Clause 2 will not work out quite as he imagines, because fishing boats which operate in that part of the sea will go to other parts which are not covered by any embargo, and they will bring in a certain amount of good quality fish which will replace the fish which at that time is not of good quality, most of which never reaches the consumer but is counted as being consumed because it goes to the fish manure works and is consumed in that way. That has been brought about by general agreement. I am convinced that the consumer will not suffer in any way as regards price.
In regard to immature fish, there again the question of the size of the net, the larger mesh, and the embargo on the selling of small fish, has all been arrived at by agreement between the Department and those actually engaged in the industry. As far as the consumers are concerned no tears will be shed by them because they are not allowed to buy what is in many cases nothing but a little bit of skin and bone. We have general agreement there. It is generally recognised that if the Government intends to, and does, confer certain benefits on an industry that industry should be required to do something itself to prove to the Government, who have kindly done this for them, that they are determined to put
their own house in order. Already on the strength of the promise of this Bill those engaged in the industry have faith that the Government will be able to command a majority to pass the Bill, and orders have been given for now trawlers of the latest and most up-to-date type, fitted with all the latest scientific instruments, and comforts and conveniences for the crew, which are not to be found on the older boats, That is a sign that those in the industry have faith in the Measure, and they are already beginning to reorganise their own affairs. There is no doubt that this example will be followed by many others in the industry. The Bill spells hope for the industry, it means practical help to those who have put their capital into the industry, and to those who are employed. It is action, not mere promises, and I commend the Bill to the House.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words:
this House declines to pass a Bill for increasing the profits of the sea-fishing industry by restricting supplies without controlling prices and without safeguarding the conditions and financial interests of the crews, and providing for the equipment of fishing boats with adequate safety appliances as recommended by the Committee of Inquiry.
I feel inclined to regret having to move this Amendment after the very lucid speech of the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley). He quite rightly regards it as a great privilege to be permitted to play the most important part in the last stages of so important a Measure affecting his own constituency. My justification for moving the rejection of the Bill is that I am expected to visit the Grimsby Parliamentary Division within the next seven or eight days to open a baby show. I am, therefore, representing the babies of to-day, the men and women of to-morrow, that is the consuming interests, and I feel justified in moving the rejection of the Bill. Unless the Minister of Agriculture and those responsible for drainage Measures look sharp about their business the chances are that there will be so much water in the Don Valley that we may perhaps catch more fish than are caught and landed at Grimsby. The Labour party has great sympathy with the fishing in-
dustry as a whole. There is an affinity between the fishermen who brave the storms and miners who brave the elements down below. We claim for the miner a reasonable wage and a reasonable standard of existence, but so far we have not succeeded in our efforts. We feel that the fisherman is entitled not only to a sense of security but to a reasonable standard of existence after having braved the storms for months on end. The earnings of the crews, in which I am particularly interested, are wholly inconsistent with the life a fisherman is called upon to follow.
What we feel about this Measure is that, like other similar Measures introduced by this Government, it starts at the wrong end. The Government recognises individualism gone mad, in agriculture and in fishing, each trawler company, each owner, striving for himself. Committees have sat and have reported, but Conservative Governments in the past, and Liberal Governments as well, have always felt that individualism is the law of life, it is the fundamental basis of their economic conceptions, and the last thing for either of these parties to do would be to interfere with the individualism that has manifested itself in the fishing industry. This Government and the hon. Member for Grimsby have at long last been made to appreciate, by the force of economic events and I hope by Socialist propaganda, that sane marketing and sane organisation are the only things which will bring permanent prosperity to one of our major industries. I compliment the hon. Member on having achieved so much of the Socialist outlook as to be well on the way to a decent political future.
This Bill proceeds along the line of restricting supplies for the purpose of increasing the price. For a period of three years the Government take no step, apart from Clause 5, to deal with any one of the suggestions and recommendations of the Fishing Industry Committee. That committee dealt with Billingsgate and the interests between the port and Billingsgate and between Billingsgate and the retailers' shops but in this Bill no reference is made to these things, and for three years, apart from a mere examination by the Sea-fish Commission of the restriction of supplies, nothing is undertaken. A low price at the port of course
means disaster to the trawler companies, bile's high price in the retail shops may equally mean disaster to the consumer. I am not sure that it is the best method to employ, to relate supplies to the price received by the producer. Far better would it be, I think, to relate retail prices to the ability of the consumer to pay. Only there and then can you maintain that constant demand for the commodity which alone gives any sense of security to the producer. The margin between the producer and the retailer is so well known as not to need reiteration.
What we think the Government might have done is to have accepted one of our Amendments to-day. Let them establish their Sea-fish Commission under Clause 5, and give the commission 12 months in which to investigate the problem of distribution and sale. We understand that there is a good deal of efficiency in catching and landing, although there is still much to be desired. I can visualise that while trawlers act on their own it means disruption to all. If one trawler company has two or three boats in an area where the shoals are very large, it cannot be expected that those boats will wireless the information to their competitors on the high seas and bring them to the shoal. They would prefer to make a good haul for themselves and let the rest of the shoal go by, even if their competitors get back to port with little or no fish at all. That is the sort of thing that might be dealt with, but only when you have a unified system in operation from any port, large or small. That side of the matter perhaps the commission will deal with. We prefer that the first part of their duty should be applied to distribution and sale, for there we think that the producer can be made to receive a far better proportion of the ultimate price paid by the consumer. To that extent we lament the restriction, without any sort of control of price or any effort to deal with price within the three years specified in Clause 1.
We are bound to confess that these restrictions, taken alone, may prove positively dangerous not only to the con sumer but to the producer too, for we have had lots of experience with agriculture. We are afraid that if we encourage trawler owners to believe that their whole future depends on mere restriction and that efficiency in catching, landing or
sales does not matter very much, we shall be leading fishermen up the garden as agriculturists have been led in the past. Even though we do not live in Grimsby and have not the privilege of representing Grimsby, we wish to see fishing a prosperous industry. We know there has been a rise in the consumption of fish from 1921, and we would like to see it maintained. We would like to see the producer prosperous and the consumer consuming more fish at a reasonable price, and anyone who renders a real service getting payment for the service rendered.
All the recommendations of the Fishing Industry Committee with regard to the crew have been ignored. I do not want to waste time in dealing with them, but the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has chided us on more than one occasion on the subject. I recall one recommendation that we regard as fundamental. On page 151 of the Fishing Industry Committee's Report there is a recommendation. Evidence was taken, abuse was proved in all sorts of ways, and these are the Committee's summing up and recommendations with regard to the crews:
That Parliament should be invited to amend the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, in relation to the employment of fishermen as members of crews of fishing vessels in the following respect:—
It should be made compulsory for the signing on and off of the crews of fishing vessels to take place at Board of Trade offices in the presence of a marine superintendent or his deputy.
It should be made compulsory for owners to give to each member of the crew of a fishing vessel who is paid partly by share in the profits, a detailed settling sheet in the form now furnished to skippers and mates.
It should be made compulsory for the owner of a fishing vessel to furnish to the marine superintendent a certified true copy of the settling sheet issued to the skipper, master and crew. Failure to do so should be made an offence subject to a substantial fine.
The requirements in regard to the provision of life-saving appliances on fishing vessels should be revised so as to be applicable to modern fishing vessels in modern conditions, and power should be given to the Board of Trade to vary them from time to time, as circumstances require.
Members of the crew may be as individualistic as are the owners of trawlers,
because of their life and their environment, but they are as much entitled to receive a true settling sheet as is the master or the mate. These men do the work; they risk their lives. They enter into engagements, and those engagements ought to be fully carried out. The Fishing Industry Committee recommended that the Government take steps in that direction, but no word, no action, no dot or comma is there in the Bill referring to the crews. We regret that. We entirely agree with the conception of the Government as embodied in Clauses 3, 4 and 5. We think there may be something in the point of Clause 2, but here again, while we are willing to allow the Government to restrict, while we are prepared to accept some of the arguments as substantial, we cannot see why the Government should not give the consumer some guarantee that prohibition will not take place unless generous supplies at reasonable prices are available.
The Order under Clause 1 restricting the importation of 200,000 cwts. may not be much. It is the implication of Clause 1 that matters, perhaps, more than the restriction. We wanted the Order under Clause 1 to operate for only 12 months, but the Government have insisted on three years. The imports of fish decreased in 1931–32. and the consumption per head went down to exactly the same extent. In 12 months we would be able to see what the effect of an Order under Clause 1 would be. We would be able to determine whether or not supplies at reasonable prices were available. If there was an adverse effect on the consumer that would surely be reflected on the producer ultimately. The Government have the power either to renew or to hesitate to renew any Order under Clause 1.
Legislation for dealing with the fishing industry is long overdue. I am pleased that the Government have done something, even though that something is done quite wrongly. White fish and cured fish will now become a subject that we shall have to watch very carefully. We regret that the Government have concentrated exclusively on restricting supplies, have paid 110 attention to the control of prices, have done nothing to safeguard the income of the crews or to remove the abuses practised by the trawler companies and by the auctioneers, who very often act for
the trawler companies, and by all the people who take advantage of the crews as referred to in the Fishing Industry Committee's Report. For all these reasons we oppose the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I desire, in the first place, to associate myself with the congratulations offered by the last speaker to the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) whom we were delighted to hear moving the Third Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member said that the fishing industry had been neglected and that there had not been any legislation dealing with it for a long time. I think it is true to say that the industry has been neglected since the War, though before the War we had the North Sea Fisheries Convention and a number of administrative measures taken by the Fishery Board in Scotland, some of which indeed the hon. Member might scarcely have approved of, inasmuch as they were directed against the trawlers or rather against those in the trawling industry who abused their rights. Moreover, it is hardly true to say that it has been entirely neglected since the War. The Government of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) was head, gave very substantial help to the industry, and since the War, Members of all parties have become increasingly aware of the serious plight of the industry and the need for legislative action. It is only fair to pay a tribute, in passing, to Dr. Addison and the Labour Government of which he was a Member for setting up the committee of inquiry, the report of which, on the Government's own admission, forms the basis of the Bill.
The objects of the Bill are laudable but I think the hon. Member for Grimsby went too far in claiming that there was general agreement on its principles. On the contrary, I regard the principles of Clauses 1 and 2 as wholly vicious and as far outweighing the benefits which the industry may conceivably receive—indeed, I think, will certainly receive—under Clauses 3, 4 and 5. If I may be allowed another personal reference before proceeding to deal with the Bill further, may I say that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seemed to think that in speaking of the inadequacy of some explanation
which he gave earlier I implied a personal inadequacy on his part? The House knows that if there is an adequate explanation to be given we can rely on the hon. Gentleman to give it with fullness and lucidity. It is only when he is asked to attempt the impossible that his explanations fall short of that standard.
I desire to concentrate on these two Clauses 1 and 2, which I consider are fraught with real danger to the fishing industry. I take Clause 2 first. It enables the Government to prevent fishing in an area of the sea which has yielded an important contribution to the fishing supplies of this country in the past. We are told that it is only during certain months that fishing in that area is to be prevented but those months constitute a large proportion of the months during which that area is free from ice. It is a very important source of supply. The report of the Scott Committee refers to seven or eight different sources of supply and ranks the Bear Island and Spitzbergen area as third in importance. In their interim report the Committee say that the Trawlers Federation informed them that there was a large and increasing demand in industrial districts such as Lancashire and the West Riding, for fish of the commoner types which have been taken in abundance on the Bear Island ground. It is fish of those commoner types which is within the reach of the people in the industrial districts in Lancashire and the West Riding, and yet the supplies from the grounds where that kind of fish is plentiful are going to be restricted under Clause 2 with unfortunate effects, inevitably, on the cost of living of those industrial populations. That is my first objection to Clause 2.
My next objection is that it will almost inevitably lead to over-fishing in the North Sea. The Minister in moving the Second Reading of the Bill declared that the North Sea was subject to over-fishing now. He said:
Of course, if we allow that it is impossible to overfish the North Sea, all that argument falls to the ground, but I ask he House to reject that view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1933; cols. 1347–1348, Vol. 279.]
Evidence accumulates about the over-fishing of the North Sea and its disastrous effects. If these trawlers are pre vented from going to the distant fishing
grounds—not only the existing trawlers but the new trawlers on which the hon. Member for Grimsby has descanted to us—they will go to the already congested grounds nearer home in the North Sea. This will lead to further over-fishing in the North Sea with disastrous results to what is by far the most important of all this country's sources of fish supplies. That brings me to another point which is very important from the Scottish point of view and from the point of view of hon. Members representing certain Cornish and other constituencies, namely, the effect on the inshore fisherman. Undoubtedly, one of the effects will be to intensify the competition of the trawlers. It will give them a fresh incentive for their depredations within the three-mile limit and I may point out to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland that it will make it more important that he should increase the efficiency of his cruiser patrol to prevent those depredations. The restriction of fishing on the distant grounds is full of danger to the inshore fisherman at home.
I come to my fourth and last objection to Clause 2. We have had a long discussion on the main report of the Scott Committee but I would like to refer to the interim report which was furnished by the Committee when Dr. Addison was still its chairman, on the subject of the discovery of new fishing grounds. That interim report states that in some cases the nearer fishing grounds already worked by British trawlers have become less productive and that in others foreign competition has become keener. The Committee states that the British Trawlers Federation strongly urged exploratory work for the discovery of new grounds. It was only in January, 1930, that the British Trawlers Federation was urging that policy, and they stated that owing to the absence of adequate data the use of those distant grounds was more costly and more dangerous than was fishing in those waters in which, for economic reasons, it was less profitable for British trawlers to operate. The waters which the Federation declare to be the least profitable to operate are the very waters to which they are going to be confined under Clause 2.
Further, they contended that it would be unreasonable to expect them to incur expenditure the results of which would be
embodied in published charts and would become available to the world, and they asked this House on behalf of the taxpayer to incur that expenditure. If adequate charts were available and if the necessary trawlers were available, the Federation state that there is almost no limit to the number of landings possible from these fishing grounds. The Committee on the advice of the Trawlers Federation recommended only three years ago an expenditure of £250,000 of which a substantial sum has already been spent. I do not know whether any of the new charts have yet been provided, but I should think that the old charts showing the latitude and longitude are all that they would now require to be certain of the limits of those grounds on which they will no longer be allowed to fish but for the discovery of which this House has voted such a considerable sum of money. Even if restriction were a desirable policy, this Clause would be one of the craziest ways of applying the principle to the problem of the fishing industry.
Now, I come to Clause 3. This Clause is ill-conceived to deal with the real plight of the fishing industry. It is vicious in principle and is likely to be in some respects a source of further danger to the fishing industry. Even if the positive dangers which I foresee can be guarded against, and if the limits to its operation which were described by the Minister on the Second Reading are adhered to, it will be nugatory in its effect on the general situation. The Minister described eloquently and in language by no means exaggerated the situation of the industry. He said that the accountants reports
Show that the price of fish at the port of landing has not only fallen below the remunerative level, but below the replacement level,
and that eventually the whole industry might be "swamped" and might "finally founder." That, he said, was the situation with which we had to deal and he added:
With the danger of widespread unemployment, with the danger that an industry vital, if any industry is vital, to the life of the country may founder while we are talking about it, we must he ready to take immediate steps.
The Minister says "Here are positive recommendations which will save the industry." What are these recommendations. The Minister informs us:
We have arranged accordingly with foreign countries, and they are accepting the limitations which we put in, that is to 'say, that a 10 per cent. cut will be made upon their average annual imports, during the last three years, country by country. All countries will be treated alike in this respect, and the reduction of imports of white fish, we reckon, will amount to about 200,000 cwts. per annum on the average of the last three years."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1933, cols. 1341, 1343, 1354, Vol. 279.]
Out of 14,000,000 cwts. of fish which come upon the market every year, 200,000 cwts. are to be taken off, which means 600 or 700 cwts. a day taken off the markets of the country. When I refer to the 14,000,000 cwts., that, of course, is the whole supply coming on the market, and of those only 200,000 cwts. of the foreign supplies are to be stopped, and that means that if the equivalent amount of the home supplies is stopped the total reduction will be only 400,000 cwts.
But is there to be a reduction even of 200,000 cwts. in the amount of foreign supplies now coming upon the market? The Minister, it will be remembered, said that the 10 per cent. cut would be made upon the average annual imports during the last three years. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade supplied the figures of those imports to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. Wood), on the 30th June, and I find that they were 2,500,000 cwts., roughly, in 1930, just over 2,000,000 in 1931, and 1,800,000 cwts. in 1932. The average of those is just over 2,000,000 cwts., and if you take off 10 per cent. of that average, it comes to a little more than 200,000 cwts. Subtract it from the average of 2,100,000 cwts., and you will find that the amount of imports which are to be allowed to come in will be 1,941,000 cwts. in the coming year, as against 1,856,000 cwts. which came in last year.
Under these proposals there will be no restriction. If the limits laid down by the Minister are to be adhered to, there will be more fish allowed to enter, larger foreign imports, next year than last year; and if they had left it alone—actually the foreign imports have been falling off every year for the last four or five years—there would have been less still. That is why I say that if the limits suggested by the Minister are adhered to, this Clause will be practically nugatory in its effects. But if these limits are not observed and if additional restrictions
are enforced is it not evident that inevitably it must have the effect of putting up the retail price, if indeed in the existing circumstances the wholesale price has sufficient buoyancy to rise at all? The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said that he was certain the retail price would not rise because of his experience in the meat trade; but the fish trade is a very different matter. The Food Council has analysed the structure of the fishing industry, and it has shown that the profits of the retailer, port salesman and inland salesman, taken together, mount only to ½d. per lb. If you put up the wholesale price of fish, the rise will very rapidly reach the retail shop, where. 30 per cent. of the fish is sold, or the fried fish shop, of which my hon. Friend was speaking, where no less than 50 per cent. of the landings of fish are sold at the present time. If this increase of price takes place in the existing circumstances of depression, of low wages, and of unemployment, it can have only one result, namely, to reduce consumption, and the last stage of the fishing industry, if that takes place, will be a great deal worse than it was before this Bill was introduced.
There is, I think, no part of the United Kingdom which will be more seriously affected than that part which is so ably represented, in part, by my hon. Friend the Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Burnett). One half of the foreign fish landed in this country is landed in Aberdeen, of which no less than 73 per cent. is exported, an invaluable export trade, which is maintained in the teeth of the fiercest competition and on the narrowest margins. We hear a great deal of the balance of trade and of the importance of restricting imports. It is a far more healthy way of restoring the balance of trade to encourage your exports than to restrict your imports, but what are we to say of a Government which, at a time when they are committed to restoring the balance of trade, bring in a Measure of this kind, which must be dangerous for one of our valuable export trades? When the tariff was put on at first, the objections of the industry were waived on one side, but, owing very largely to the strenuous, hard work of my hon. Friend in representing the interests of his constituents, eventually it was decided that a method
of drawback should be adopted. There is, however, no method of drawback in the case of a quota. If this quota limits to any extent the supplies of that very valuable industry, not only to Aberdeen, but to the whole country, it will have indeed serious and possibly irreparable consequences.
What does this foreign fish mean to the country? It means not only a supply of good, cheap fish for our consumers; it means the expenditure of a great deal of money in this country by the foreigner. It is calculated that these Germans bringing this fish to Aberdeen spend £140,000 a year for coal, labour, and harbour dues. They spend £80,000 for Fife coal alone. The loading, the curing, the fish meal into which a great deal of this fish is converted, the transport, even the wages of the German crews, of which a substantial part is spent in Aberdeen, all mean work and prosperity for the people of Aberdeen; and it is only the profits of the voyage that go back to Germany on these German ships, a very much smaller amount than that which is spent here in our own country of Scotland.
Therefore, I say that this Bill is full of dangers for an important section of the fishing trade of this country, and not only so. I further said that I was prepared to prove that it was ill-conceived to deal with the real causes of the distress. These foreign imports are not the cause at all. They have been going down for the last five years, according to all the figures. Nothing is done in this Bill for the inshore fishermen, in spite of the recommendations of the Scott Committee, which says clearly what is required. It quotes the Food Council, which had also reported on what was necessary for the inshore fishermen, namely, better marketing arrangements to give them a fair deal, which they are not getting at the present time in the markets of the country. The Scott Committee say:
The policy of leaving to the salesmen themselves the task of carrying out the necessary reform through their Association may be regarded as having definitely failed, and a remedy must accordingly be sought elsewhere.
Everybody knew what the defects were. The industry, as at present constituted, was unwilling to put these defects right. It is true that under this Bill a Sea-fish Commission is to be set up to discover
afresh what these defects are. The Government have refused the weapon which they might have held over the industry of declining to make fresh Orders or to continue the existing Orders in operation unless the industry put their house in order.

Mr. SKELTON: Is it the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposition that until there is a marketing scheme in being there is to be no restriction?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Certainly. I am opposed entirely to the whole policy of restrictions, but in case it were proved that restrictions will constitute the advantage which the Government think they will constitute, it was folly on the part of the Government not to keep in their hands a weapon which, if it proves to be a weapon at all—but I think it will be a broken reed—will compel the industry to take those steps which are necessary to give the inshore fishermen a fair deal on the market. The Scott Committee says:
As the Food Council has pointed out, the root of the complaint lies in the fact that salesmen act both as merchants buying and selling fish on their own account and as commission salesmen on behalf of port wholesale merchants. Such a state of affairs inevitably leads to abuses.
We think these abuses should be cleared away before special advantages are given to any of the interests which are mentioned in the Bill.
There is no benefit in this Bill for the inshore fishing industry. They do not compete in the same kind of markets as the trawling fishermen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) said in his Second Reading speech, nobody would buy trawled fish if they could get the inshore stuff. It is a different kind of commodity, and these restrictions, even if they were effective would not bring the inshore fishermen any benefit. There is nothing for the inshore fishermen or for the herring fishermen in this Bill. When the first German Trade Agreement was concluded we demanded to know why there was nothing for the herring fishing industry, which is in by far the worst condition of any section of the fishing industry. The Scott Committee said:
the situation of the herring fishing industry presents problems far more serious than those of the trawling industry.
Yet in the first Trade Agreement with Germany the herring fishing trade, which
has its most important market in Germany, was left out. I do not know whether a White Paper has been circulated, but in the "Times" yesterday there was an account of the new Fishing Agreement with Germany. There is nothing about the herring fishing industry, however, although Germany is the most important market for that section of the industry, which is far more distressed than the trawling industry. There is nothing in either of these trading agreements with Germany for the herring fishing industry which does a great export trade, which would be so valuable for the general policy of the Government in improving the balance of trade. There is nothing for it in this Bill, nothing, indeed, except the dangers that will come to our export trade in herrings if we still further interfere with the export trade of other countries in other forms of fish. The Secretary of State for Scotland said in his speech on the Second Reading that I would no doubt agree with him that there had been a mistaken idea in the past that the Secretary of State had no interest in the trawling industry, and was concerned only with the herring fishing industry. I agree that the trawling fishing industry is an important part of the fishing industry of the country which every Secretary of State must take into account, but, after all, only one-third of the fishermen of the United Kingdom are employed in the trawling industry, and only one-sixth of the fishermen in Scotland are employed in it. I have no hesitation in saying that the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture, especially in view of the opinion expressed by the Scott Committee, ought to regard the herring fishing industry of Scotland as being within their special purview. The Secretary of State for Scotland ought to have a very special regard for the interests of that great industry.
This Bill is ill-conceived to deal with the causes of the depression in the fishing industry. It is vicious in principle—the idea that you can restore prosperity, still less employment, by restricting production with the inevitable result of throwing more men out of employment. The Government in this matter, as in some other matters, do not seem to know their own minds. The hon. Member for Grimsby, in his admirable speech in
moving the Third Reading of the Bill, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade at an earlier stage, talked about the new trawlers that were going to be built. New trawlers to catch fewer fish! That is the most astonishing "Alice-Through-the-Looking-Glass" economics that I have heard, even from this Government, for a long time. This restriction is vicious in principle because, although the Minister of Agriculture says that only 10 per cent. of the restriction is to be put in force, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, in winding up the Debate on the Second Reading, made it quite clear that the Government held themselves free to prohibit entirely foreign imports of fish. He said:
The Board of Trade regulate the landings. The Order to regulate may prohibit. It is not necessarily a quota system. … I can only say that this Order is intended to be used as a sluice gate … which may exclude totally or partially."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th June, 1933; col. 1453, Vol. 279.]
The power of excluding totally or prohibiting the import of an important article of food for the great masses of the people like fish is one which the House ought not to entrust to any Government Department. Restrictions have been imposed in one country after another in an effort to shelter particular industries from the effects of economic depression, and have uniformly had one result. Whether it has been the taking of wheat off the market by the Canadian Wheat Pool, or what they call in America "Hoover's Seven Hundred Million Dollar folly," the Farm Board—wherever the effort has been made it has always had the result of driving down prices still further. With great stocks overhanging the market prices have dropped to lower and lower levels. So I believe that this principle of restriction, vicious in general, will prove to be vicious as applied to this particular industry.
It is quite inconsistent with the central theme of the Government's policy. That policy, as enunciated by the Prime Minister at the opening of the World Economic Conference, was to free international trade, to remove restrictions, to let goods move more freely across the waters of the globe; yet here we are introducing fresh restrictions. The Minister said the Government are doing this in consultation and in agreement with foreign
countries; but what sort of agreement is it when Ministers go to those countries and make it clear to them that, whether they agree or not, there are going to be these restrictions, and so they had better agree quickly or it will be the worse for them? They do this at a moment when they have gone into a World Economic Conference with "Freedom of trade" blazoned upon their banners and with the Prime Minister saying that what they want is to remove restrictions and to make trade move more freely.
Therefore, I say that this Bill is inconsistent with the main theme of the Government's policy, it is irrelevant to the main causes of the depression in the fishing industry, it is likely to be in some respects, and in those which are of particular importance to Scotland, dangerous and not helpful to the fishing industry, and it will certainly fail to achieve the objects and the wishes which we all share and which the Government have explained to the House, and will prove, as I fear, not a blessing, but a curse, to the fishing industry.

8.37 p.m.

Commander COCHRANE: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) when he moved his Amendment, expressed the hope that he had stated quite clearly his reasons for the course he took. While I disagree with the emphasis which he put on the various points which he raised, I most certainly agree that he expressed his reasons very clearly. Those points have already been discussed, and therefore I do not propose to say anything more about them. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) proceeded on rather different lines, because it appeared to me, during the course of his speech, that the vehemence of his denunciation of the Government had caused his argument to stand on its bead on several occasions. I would point out one or two instances where I think he was rather at fault in that respect. First, it is a matter of astonishment that he should have denounced so wholeheartedly the fact that the foreign restrictions was not sufficient.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I did not denounce the fact. I pointed it out.

Commander COCHRANE: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman regretted
that there was not more foreign restriction. That was the only inference to be drawn from his speech.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I did not regret it. I merely pointed out that this was a Bill which, on the face of it does not bring about restriction, and if it fails to do it I certainly regret that the Government should waste the time of the House by bringing before us a Measure which fails to fulfil its purpose.

Commander COCHRANE: Perhaps my right hon. and gallant Friend will read his speech in the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow, and then settle the matter with the leader of his Party. The next point with which I wish to deal was his argument about Aberdeen, which was really one of the most extraordinary arguments I have ever heard in this House. What he proved, apparently entirely to his own satisfaction, was that Aberdeen would be much more prosperous if the whole of the fishing trade were carried on by German trawlers.

Sir A. SINCLAIR indicated dissent.

Commander COCHRANE: Well, I do not know of any other point in that argument, because he referred to the 80,000 tons of Fife coal which the German trawlers use. Would British trawlers burn less?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Aberdeen would be less prosperous if it did not have the German fish. My hon. and gallant Friend can ask anybody in the Aberdeen fish-curing industry if that is not true.

Commander COCHRANE: My right hon. and gallant Friend has addressed the House, and surely I may be permitted to put my interpretation upon the views he has laid before the House.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: But not to misrepresent them.

Commander COCHRANE: If I have misrepresented my right hon. and gallant Friend I hope he will draw attention to that misrepresentation, and not intervene with any complaint he has of the views which I am trying to express.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The hon. and gallant Member said I had stated that the Aberdeen fishing industry would be less prosperous if it had more home fish. I pointed out clearly that it would be
less prosperous if it had less German fish, which is a very different thing.

Commander COCHRANE: What I said, certainly what I intended to say, was that the only conclusion I could draw from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's speech was that in his view Aberdeen would be more prosperous if the whole of its fishing industry was carried on by German trawlers. If that was not his contention I can see no point in his reference to the 80,000 tons of coal burned by German trawlers, and no point in his reference to three-quarters of the wages of the German crews being spent there.

Sir M. WOOD: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the Aberdeen fish merchants sent a deputation to Germany and asked them particularly to come to Aberdeen with their fish, because they were unable to get the particular supplies they wanted from our own ships at home?

Commander COCHRANE: I quite appreciate that argument from the Liberal party, on behalf of the middlemen, but I would point out that the fishing industry will not be in a satisfactory condition until the supplies to which my hon. Friend refers are available from British trawlers. So long as they insist on those supplies being provided by German trawlers, there can be no hope of that type of fish being provided by our own trawlers. Further, my right hon. and gallant Friend said this Bill did nothing for the herring industry. I hope I shall not be pulled up again. Indeed, I think he went further, and said it would be harmful to the herring industry. I am glad that I am correct for once. Perhaps I may examine that point. It is a great mistake to think that the herring industry stands alone, particularly the Scottish herring industry, in which we have the very large type of steam drifter which cannot be maintained on the amount of herring fishing which is now available during the 12 months. In order to pay their heavy overhead charges, those boats have to try to work all the year round, and some part of their fishing must be line fishing. When they cannot carry out herring fishing they are bound to go line fishing in the North Sea.
If there is one Clause in this Bill which I regard with the greatest favour as
being of the greatest importance, it is Clause 3, which limits the size of the mesh which may be used for catching fish. I think that will have a most beneficial effect on the stocks of fish in the North Sea, and in that way tend to help the herring industry, because the herring industry ought not to be regarded as a thing apart and not concerned with stocks of white fish. That was another point where I think my right hon. and gallant Friend laid an entirely wrong emphasis on the provisions of the Bill. Referring to the restrictions on fish coming from Bear Island and those areas, he said the result would be that trawlers which are not allowed to fish there would come into the North Sea, and thereby still further deplete stocks already too low. If one takes two Clauses of the Bill together, Clauses 2 and 3, I do not think that interpretation can be put upon them. I am satisfied that the provisions of Clause 3, which restrict the size of the mesh to be used, will far outweigh any additional fishing which may take place in the North Sea, in the case of the Bear Island area being closed for a few months.
The right hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to the point as to new trawlers being built that was mentioned by the hon. Member who moved the Third Reading. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, "Here you are restricting fishing, and yet you are building new trawlers at the same time." He described it, I think, as something suitable for "Alice in Wonderland." It is well to inquire why trawlers are not being replaced to-day. Surely the reason is that the fishing fleet is run at a loss. You cannot replace an £8,000 trawler out of a loss of £100 a month. If this monthly loss can, as a result of this Bill, be changed into a profit, it is logical that new trawlers will be ordered to replace the worn-out ones.
I would offer a cordial welcome to this Bill, mainly for what is contained in Clauses 3 and 4, which restrict the size of the net which may be used. It is the first time that the British Parliament has dealt in this way with the question of the taking of small fish from the high seas. I hope that the method which is proposed will prove satisfactory, and that we shall, in the course of time, be able to get back to what is the only satisfactory state of affairs, particularly in an
almost enclosed area like the North Sea, which is that the people who carry on line-fishing, if they go to a suitable bank, will be able to get a reasonable haul of fish. In these matters there must be some rough-and-ready rule, and I believe that a convenient rule for testing whether an area is over-fished or not is whether you can get a decent haul of fish by lines in that area. It may be thought that only foolish or ill-nourished fish would get themselves caught by a hook, but I understand from those who know this subject that that is not so, and that, in fact, it is the healthiest and best fish that are caught on the long lines. That provides a rough-and-ready test in this matter. For those reasons, I welcome this Bill as an important advance and because of what I hope it will enable fresh legislation to do for the fishing industry.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. H. STEWART: I cannot help feeling, after having sat in the House for the whole of this Debate, that a large portion of the discussion has been unreal. The House has spent a good deal of time discussing Amendments which, in my humble opinion, have no practical basis of justice. I do not in the least mean disrespect to hon. Members and still less to this House, but I confess that it makes one despair of the party system which brings up Amendments of this sort and of the sense of time of hon. Members. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) reminded me of the thrush.
That's the wise thrush; he sings each song twice over
Lest you should think he never could recapture
The first fine careless rapture!
I do not suggest that the voice of Torquay is the voice of the thrush, but the tactics seem to he very closely similar.
We listened to a vigorous onslaught upon this Bill by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) I am very sorry that he has left the Chamber, because I feel it necessary to examine some of the amazing observations that he passed. I do so with a good deal of trepidation, because he and I have, in the past, worked very closely on this and similar problems. We have been brought up in the same traditions and have shared the same faith, and I cannot understand the departure that he has made from
those old Liberal traditions. I want to examine his point of view. He started off by saying that Clause 2 was an impossible Clause, to which he offered complete and unbending objection. He and his colleagues are constantly referring to reports to substantiate their view; may I also refer to a report from the country of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, the Scottish Fisheries Board Report. I find that, as regards this problem of taking fish from certain areas at certain times of the year, the Board, which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends support, say, in their report for 1932, published a few days ago:
Trips to this Northern ground yield, as a rule, heavy catches, but, as a result of the time spent on the passage, the fish are usually marketed in inferior condition, thus realising low prices, and possibly also depressing the value of fish landed from nearer grounds in better condition.
That is the whole reason and justification for this Clause. Fish are coming in in bad condition and poor quality, depressing the whole market, lowering prices and making the livelihood of the fishermen all the more difficult. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that that Clause was going to have a very discouraging effect upon inshore fishermen because the trawlers would steal in during the night, more than ever, As I understand it, the Sea-fish Commission, which I am delighted to find my right hon. and gallant Friend supports, though some of his colleagues are rather critical of it, will have as one of its important tasks to inquire into this matter of illegal trawling, which is very important in Scotland, and to suggest proposals and recommendations in that regard.
He passed on from to criticise the whole system of curtailing foreign imports. In his examination, by some kind of Maskelyne mathematics, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was able to prove that by reducing foreign imports by 10 per cent. more imports came in! If that be so, why should the right hon. and gallant Gentleman object to it? It seemed that he should have welcomed the Bill, which was going to increase the flow of foreign fish into this country. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman must face up to the real practical problems with which the fishing industry is confronted. I have the greatest possible respect for the work that my right hon. and gallant Friend has
done in the past, but I beg him on this occasion to face realities without theories or doctrinaire policies of any kind. One of the realities is that there is a great and growing over-supply of fish on the market. My right hon. and gallant Friend and his colleagues, as well as hon. Members on the opposite benches, have repeatedly quoted the evidence of the Addison Committee, and they have referred to the recommendations as to unemployment, and to the recommendations upon the sale of fish. Why have none of those critics of the Bill told the House that the third of a long line of recommendations by this committee is that the imports of fish should be subjected to seine kind of control 4 That is the recommendation of their own committee, which they are calling to their support throughout this Debate. It is on page 134 of the report, and it reads as follows:
We are thus now confronted with a situation in which the fish which the British trawling industry can market is substantially below its productive capacity.
Later on it proceeds:
In these circumstances, we recommend that the question of imposing restrictions on the imports of white fish should be considered by His Majesty's Government.
That is what the Government have done. The recommendations of the Addison Committee have been examined by the Scottish Fishery Board—to return again to the native land of my right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness—and they have expressed their views upon it. They say:
The average price of white fish at Scottish ports has fallen from 22s. 9d. per cwt. in 1929 to 17s. 4d. per cwt. in 1932; and, while this decrease is in part due to the world-wide economic depression, it appears clear that the substantial increase during that period in the landings in England of fish from distant waters, and the continually increasing quantity of small haddocks landed, have been important contributory factors. Some restriction of the supply of these inferior qualities of fish seems to be necessary.
That, again, is a justification for this Bill, coming, as it does, from people who have examined the problem with the greatest care and with complete impartiality.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I have been looking very carefully at page 134 of the Report of the Committee on the Fishing Industry, and I do not find there the words which the hon. Member has quoted.

Mr. STEWART: I copied the quotation from the report, but it may be on some other page. I will check it and let the hon. Gentleman know, but the words I have read are precisely the words of the report.
This Bill is not the beginning and end of the fish legislation of this Government, or of this Parliament, or of this country. It is only the beginning. We are only preparing the net to catch the trade of the future. The Minister informed us in Committee upstairs that it is his firm determination to advance with further measures to better the system of marketing and the system of transport of fish, to improve the conditions of employment, to which my hon. Friends opposite attach so much importance, to improve and increase the consumption of fish by the people of this country, and to deal with the herring industry. My right hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and his colleagues are right in deploring the fact that the herring industry is depressed, and in asking for measures for its improvement; but do not let them condemn this Bill, which advances a certain distance, because it does not advance the whole distance at once. That would be unreasonable. The Bill is the foundation upon which we shall build in the future.
My right hon. Friend and I, in days gone by, have fought for security of tenure for the smallholders. We took the view then that these men, in Scotland and elsewhere, were in an intolerable position, never knowing when their rents would be raised, or when they would be turned out of their holdings. We fought for security of tenure for them. The fishermen also should be given security. Their security is the security of a market and of prices. I would appeal to my hon. Friends in this way, that by supporting this Bill they will be helping to carry through the principles for which they and I fought together in days gone by. I regret exceedingly that they voted against the Second Reading of the Bill, and I am afraid that, unless the Minister can catch them in one of their fleeting movements, they may vote against it again. I want them to realise that, if they do, they will be condemning, and, as far as they are able, killing, a Measure many of whose provisions they support, and many of whose provisions are urgently needed and asked
for by the fishing industry. The prohibition against the catching and landing of immature fish is not objected to. Why kill a Bill which aims at this necessary measure, and which brings into force the Sea-fish Commission, which has been described by my right hon. Friend as so necessary and advisable at the present time? He referred to the work of his Liberal predecessors, and I was glad that he did so. They have done much for the fishing industry in years gone by. I appeal to my hon. Friends now not to dishonour the tradition which is theirs by voting against this Measure, which attempts to do something for the fishermen. This Bill gives to the fishermen a chance of making good, and for that reason I appeal to my hon. Friends to support it.

9.2 p.m.

Mr. BURNETT: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) expressed concern as to the position under this Bill of the Aberdeen fish curers. I have had a certain amount to do with the fish curers in Aberdeen, and I can endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to the enterprise with which they have carried on their industry. In the face of competition from Norway and other countries, they have carried their trade into South America, Spain and elsewhere with great success. I should like at the same time to acknowledge the help which the right hon. Gentleman gave me when I was endeavouring to get a drawback for these fish curers. Now the Advisory Committee have given that drawback, and we know that the entry of fish from Iceland is not restricted. I cannot see, therefore, why the fish curers of Aberdeen should look upon this Bill with any alarm whatsoever, and my experience down at the fish market has been that the Bill is very strongly supported. It is rather extraordinary that, with an industry where the interests are so conflicting as in the fish trade, the Minister should have been able to frame a Bill which appears to appeal to all sides of the industry.
In the Amendment which has been put forward by hon. Members opposite, regret is expressed regarding the restriction of the import of fish, and the effect which it is likely to have upon food supplies in this country from the con-
sumer's point of view. If we look at the matter from every point of view, I cannot see why the Bill should have an adverse effect upon the consumer. Its whole purpose is to increase the supplies of fish for the future, and to prevent the prodigal use of the fish that we have and of the fishing grounds that we use. If we consume our fish two or three years before the normal time for eating them, if we eat all these immature fish, we shall find that we have wasted our substance, and that, instead of the rich harvest of the sea that we might be getting, we shall have little besides seaweed. I was talking to a number of fishermen last Saturday in the market and I found very general agreement among them as to depletion in the North Sea. One man with from 40 to 50 years' fishing experience said that formerly they could go out at 4 o'clock in the afternoon and bring back a big shot of haddock and sole for the Aberdeen market the next morning. Nowadays they would have to travel far before they could get that. Formerly on a trip they could bring in from 50 to 100 boxes of plaice, good sizeable fish of 1½ to 2 lbs. weight. Nowadays it is difficult to get plaice large enough for filleting, and halibut has been swept practically clear of the North Sea. Most of the halibut has to be got from Arctic waters. This means much larger overhead expenses. Wages, coal and food for the crew means that fish is dearer than it would be if we could get it in our own grounds. There is no doubt that the Bill in that way is aiming at our getting ultimately cheaper and better fish than we are getting now.
It is generally agreed that the cause of the depletion of the North Sea is the killing of immature fish, but as to how to prevent this there seem to be different views. There have been research experiments and the result goes to show that a larger mesh would do something, but I have heard this contested by fishermen, who say that the mesh gets pulled out and the small fish cannot get through it. Someone writing to me a day or two ago said he had examined a shot that had just been brought in caught with a 3-inch mesh net, and there were as many small fish as there would be with an ordinary net. There are many who hold that a more serous cause of the destruction of fish even than that is the otter trawl, and particular the French
gear attached to it. There is a wire cable which is fixed between the trawl board and the Dan Leno at the mouth of the net, and on each side it goes out more or less in the shape of the rear of a snow-plough and sweeps in a large amount of fish, but it also destroys a great deal of spawn and kills a lot of the young fish. Doubtless in time we shall improve our methods and, when we have the funds to buy new and improved trawlers, smaller vessels, possibly, with Diesel engines, which will be able to operate with less overhead expenses, we Shall be able to consider further how to conserve our fishing grounds. It is said that we are restricting supplies and that as a. result we shall have a smaller amount of fish for food. I do not think that necessarily follows. There is a margin. We are not getting all the food that we might from the fish that comes in. Much of it is used as fish meal and fish manure, and glue and various other products are made of it. If we took pains to preserve it, we should get a much larger percentage of human food. The hon. Member for Banff (Sir M. McKenzie Wood) a little while ago said that no one had ever presented any serious criticism of the landing of fish. The criticism had all been of the marketing. I do not think he can have read the Food Investigation Report, No. 37, on the handling and stowing of white fish at sea. I should like to read an extract:
The disadvantage of emptying the fish out of the trawl on to the unclean deck; of allowing the guts to mix with the fish; of sorting into dirty baskets; of cursory and ineffective washing, and o stowing in fish rooms the fittings of which are tainted with the accumulated slime of many voyages appears, hitherto, to have escaped the critical notice of the vessel owners.
Surely that is serious criticism. Again—
The methods of handling and stowing aboard the fishing vessels have remained practically unchanged since the introduction of ice.
Ice was introduced in 1875. A number of interesting experiments are given in the report and a number of recommendations are made. A ship was sent out in connection with the experiment and it had a bacteriologist on board. It was proved very thoroughly that the handling and the pressing of the fish broke the protective covering round its tissue. Bacteria, which were always there, invaded this and the fish deteriorated very quickly
when that was the case. It was recommended, amongst other things, that the fish should be put in small non-returnable boxes and that a heavy weight of ice should not be put on them to crush them. The boxes should be piled one on the other, overlapping, with perforations, so that the water could go through the perforations and not go on the fish that were underneath and so help to deteriorate them. It is a strange thing that the recommendations contained in the report, which were the result of a large number of experiments, were never carried into effect. With regard to the preservation of fish on one of the experimental trips, the report says that haddocks which had been caught six days before were, in the judgment of the Consultative Committee, in the same condition as other fish which had been caught only 11 days before, and plaice after five days were in the same condition as plaice in ordinary circumstances caught 1 days before. That shows what we can do in the way of the conservation of fish and how we can increase our food supplies even though the actual amount of fish is restricted. We have taken the first measures here in dealing with the nets and I hope, when that proves successful, as I believe it will, we shall be able to take further successful measures. I welcome the Bill as the beginning of a great many good things to come.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: We have listened to-day to a most interesting discussion. I rise to support my hon. Friend's Amendment and shall endeavour to justify it. I must join with other Members in thanking the hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) for his intervention in the Debate. I am very glad that the Government have seen fit to use his great knowledge both in Committee and here to-day. To be quite frank, he knows more about the fishing industry than all the other Members of the Government combined. At any rate, he and I think so. We endeavoured in Committee upstairs to amend the Bill, and, in common parlance, tried to lick it into shape, but the Government would have none of our ideas. They have been stubborn almost unto stupidity throughout, as if all sense rested on the Government side of the House.
I was very highly pleased and elated to hear the speech of the right hon.
Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair). If he and his friends can ever vote for this Government after that speech, then there is something wrong either with him or with the Government. I do not think that I have ever heard a more eloquent speech from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Certainly, nothing more critical of the Government has ever come from the benches below the Gangway. It was indeed a masterpiece of criticism, and were it not for the mass of followers of the Government who never think how or why they vote, the speech of the right hon. and gallant Baronet would have made a great impression upon the House. He made the astounding remark however that the Bill is inconsistent with the main theme of the policy of the Government. Really I cannot see that. After saying that the Bill is worthless, that in fact the Bill is dangerous and then to add that the Bill was inconsistent with the theme of the policy of the Government was strange to me. I have always held the view that practically every proposal the Government bring forward in this House is a danger to the community. In any case, these proposals fall into that category.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife (Mr. H. Stewart) was rather annoyed that certain Members of the House, especially the Opposition on this side, held views contrary to his own. If he sits in this House for many years to come he will find that it is customary for Members of the House to hold differing views. Sometimes we hold our views very violently and on other occasions quite good humouredly. He appealed to the right hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Caithness to come back to Liberal traditions—that was the amazing thing—as if he himself embraced Liberal traditions in supporting this Government. How a Member of the House of Commons calling himself a Liberal can satisfy himself that he is embracing Liberal traditions by supporting this Bill and this Government is beyond my comprehension; and I ought to know something about Liberal traditions.
This Third Reading Debate has proved one thing, that the Liberals on those benches who have spoken on the Bill tonight had better make up their minds.
After the powerful speech delivered by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman there is no reason left for supporting this Government, because this Bill is indeed in complete harmony with Tory policy. What do the Government say? Not only are they restricting and regulating the import of foreign fish into this country but they are proposing to prevent our own trawlers from going to certain parts of the high seas for three months each year to catch cheap fish. And all that is done in order to raise the price of the limited amount of fish landed from the trawlers. That is their policy. I am definitely opposed to that policy. I am not speaking at the moment of any repercussions to this policy abroad. When we were upstairs we were provided with a map, just in order to indicate the mind of the Tory party, showing where those trawlers would be prohibited and where they could go. They were entitled to go round Iceland and Greenland and the Russian Coast as well. It was typical of John Bull. He had drawn a huge red line over half the world and said, "That is mine." It was typical of the imperialistic mind of the Tory party which divides up the world by means of a red or a blue line and says to the world "That is mine." [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that somebody agrees with me. I would now say a word or two about our efforts upstairs and to-day in trying to get some concessions from the Government. It reminds me of what the Disciples once said—"Master, we have toiled all night and have caught nothing." That is our experience with the Government to-day. We thought that we might at any rate catch them napping. These restrictions will in our view fail in the purpose which the Government have in mind of helping the fishing industry. I would make it clear, apart from the differences of opinion as to how it should be done, that there is no difference between Members of this House of any party that our fishermen should be helped in some form or other. There is no doubt about that, but the way in which the Government proceed to help them is indeed an extraordinary one.
I should have thought that the Government would have started at the other end of the scale and would have said, "How much fish is required by the community? What is the price? Can we
increase the consumption of fish in order to employ these men on the high seas on trawlers to better advantage? "That, after all, is the difference between the policy of the Opposition and that of the Government in respect of everything. Let us take a lesson from the past. We saw the same principle of the Government put before the House on Tuesday when we were dealing with the price of meat. The same principle is embodied in this Bill as has been imported into practically all their legislation up to date. We hear them say, "Shut out foreign commodities because they are in competition with our own." How are they to determine whether a fish is a foreigner? Anyway it is their policy to "shut out the foreign product in order to safeguard our own." Last Tuesday in this House we were told that, in spite of all the shutting out of foreign beef, mutton and lamb, almost in the same ratio as we have reduced the imports of those commodities from abroad so have the prices of our home products declined.

9.25 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure my hon. Friend does not wish to misrepresent me. If he will do me the honour to read my speech, he will see that I said the exact opposite in every single case, and in the statistics I gave to the House.

Mr. DAVIES: Will the right hon. and gals ant Gentleman contradict this statement? Did he not say that the price of home-produced beef has gone down in the last few years?

Major ELLIOT: In the last few years! Surely the hon. Member does not suggest we were restricting meat in the last few years. I was not in power then; he was in power.

Mr. DAVIES: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman pays us too great a compliment. We were never in power. In conclusion, what the Government are doing is to look after the interests of the trawler owners, the ice merchants, the dealers in fuel, and they almost went to the extent of looking after the interests of the net manufacturers, but they thought later they would stop short of that. The two sections of the community that do not appeal to them are, first of all, the ordinary fisherman and, secondly, the consumer. As to the ordinary fisherman, their policy throughout has been
the same that they have adopted with regard to the farm labourer. In effect, what they have said is that, provided farming as a whole is put on a sound foundation, the farm labourer's conditions and wages can look after themselves. After our experience in industry, we cannot believe that, yet they say the same in the case of a fisherman. Not only are the Government neglecting the ordinary fisherman on the trawler, as apart from the owner and the master and the profit maker, but they are neglecting a body far more important than that. The contest in this Bill is between the interests of 60,000 persons employed in the fishing industry, on the one hand, and, on the other, the 44,000,000 consumers, who will have to pay an increased price for fish in consequence of the passing of this Measure. I therefore, support this Amendment in the belief that nothing will help this industry except proper marketing and raising the price of the commodity by proper distribution and thus bringing it into better relationship with modern requirements and abolishing that great gulf which now lies between wholesale and retail prices.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. SKELTON: I entirely agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that we have had a most interesting discussion, and I have no objection to make to the observations or criticisms which he and the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) have addressed to this Bill. I perceive, I believe, underneath their very clearly put and logical speeches a real sympathy on the part of hon. Members opposite with the object of the Bill, which is to save the fishing industry. There is a sense of realism in their speeches which is very refreshing to those who have the responsibility for trying to save an industry which is in the desperate condition which has been more than once described by my hon. Friends. While I listened with interest to the criticism of my hon. and right hon. Friends below the Gangway, those friends who—
We have loved long since, hut lost awhile,
I felt that those friends had neither any logical basis for their criticism nor indeed any objective or destination for it. They remind me of that interesting zoological phenomenon, the processional caterpillar,
which creeps incessantly round and round and gets no further. I confess that, as I listened to the most eloquent and passionate speech of my right hon. and gallant Friend—and I greatly admire orators whose passion is in inverse proportion to the size of their audience—I wondered whether he was really anxious to help the fishing industry of this country or whether he was anxious to retain permanently and inviolately a position in the very centre of the hedge.
With the exception of these hon. and right hon. Gentlemen—and I do not seek to bring into agreement those who do not agree—I feel that there is an undercurrent of sympathy for the objects of this Bill. The object of the Bill, as all speakers have admitted, is to save the fishing industry. No speaker, with the exception of my hon. Friend, has declared that it will fail in that object, though other methods have been suggested. The reasoned Amendment on which the Opposition will vote against the Third Reading this evening is not based on the proposition that the Bill will not assist in the saving of the fishing industry. Underlying all the criticisms of the Labour Opposition, there is the feeling that the Bill will do something to help to save the fishing industry. The measure of concurrence which I feel exists is not confined to the House, because one of the most remarkable things about the Bill is that it represents agreement between ourselves and five great fishing nations. That is a very unusual claim to be made for a Bill. That claim is made all the more remarkable by this fact, that the restriction to which the five agreeing nations have bound themselves, namely, a restriction of 10 per cent. on the average of the last three years, has for its equivalent in our domestic restriction a restriction which is only estimated at some 5 per cent. Therefore, we may say that it is a unique feature of this Bill that it has the support and approval of five foreign countries, because it embodies an agreement which we made with them and that approval is based on a measure of restriction more severe in their case than in ours. While necessity has been the mother of invention, so far as my right hon. and gallant Friend has been concerned all the inventiveness and fruitfulness of his mind needs no necessity to
urge it on, but necessity in the case of these other nations has been the mother of agreement.
As the House is well aware of the main principles of the Bill, I do not propose to deal with it at length, but I wish to recall to the House the fact that there are two periods of the Bill. One is the first three years, which is the length of the agreement with foreign nations to which I referred. During that period the agreed restrictions will have their equivalent here in the restrictions on Bear Island landing in certain seasons, the restrictions on the mesh, and the restrictions on the size of the fish sold. With regard to the Bear Island restriction, it is agreed that, by restricting the import of fish from there, one restricts the import of that lowest class fish which most depresses the price of the rest. The only other observation that I would make about Bear Island and the Bear Island restriction is, that when we agreed in Committee the other day that we would exhibit the map in order that the Opposition might be au fait with it, the colour red was not that of John Bull but a graceful acknowledgment of their party colour.
In regard to the other two restrictions, I would remind the House, although I am not going to analyse in full the speech of the right hon. and gallant Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), because there are limits both to the patience of the House and the hours of the day, that one of his criticisms was that the kind of restrictions which we are imposing by way of the Bear Island, the mesh and the landing restrictions were not the right kind of quid pro quo for foreign restrictions, that the only proper quid pro quo for restricting the foreigner was market organisation. Let me say that these two restrictions, the mesh restriction and the restriction in regard to the size of the fish sold, are restrictions which have received, I understand, a very wide measure of approval by the fishing experts of the world. In particular the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, which is one of the most important of the expert national bodies, has specifically, in a recent report, welcomed these restrictions. Indeed. I think it must strike the mind of all who consider the matter scientifically that if there is any question of lowering the standard of fish
the proper way to meet it is by increasing the size of the mesh and increasing the size of fish sold.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I welcome both.

Mr. SKELTON: If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman welcomes two of the three restrictions upon which the foreign restrictions are based, then I do not think it, lies in his mouth to draw so complete a distinction between these restrictions and marketing schemes.
In regard to the subject of marketing schemes, the House must recollect that there are two stages in this Bill. The first, the foreign restriction, is put on in return for the Bear Island restriction, the mesh alteration and the alteration with regard to the size of fish, and the second stage is, that after the three years period is over, any new foreign restriction can only be put on as the result of marketing schemes being brought into operation, if and when the Sea-fish Commission report that such schemes can be put into operation. It represents a point of view utterly impracticable and, if I may say so without discourtesy, without any shadow of statesmanship to put off giving any assistance by way of foreign restriction to our own people for three years, or even for one year, for the purely academic reason that you will allow foreign restriction in return for marketing schemes, and upon no other consideration at all, despite the fact that two of the three considerations which will operate during the first three years are universally received with acclamation by all who know and understand the necessities of fishing in the world.
Those are reasons—I will not analyse them further—a kind of intellectual direction, which seem to me to be without any use or realism to a country, an industry and a Government which are faced with the problems that prevail in this great industry. The restrictions upon fishing in this country for the first three years are sound. I do not think we can make any distinction between the wisdom of the mesh restriction, of the size of fish restriction and of the Bear Isalnd restriction. I believe those three restrictions hang together and that they are all in different ways equally valuable.
The other great feature of this Bill during the first three years is that the restrictions which will be placed by order
or by agreement on other countries leave to this country an expanding market. The realities and the logic of the proposition must strike the eye and the mind. It is said by my hon. Friends of the Official Opposition that the proper way to proceed is to increase purchasing power. If that seems possible—I will not put it higher than that—if the trade conditions of this country are improving, if you have 400,000 more people employed than you had last Christmas, if that is the tendency which is developing and if to any extent we are within sight of an expanding market, then there will be a larger demand for fish, there will be a larger purchasing power and this Bill provides that every pennyworth of that larger purchasing power will go to the British fishermen and not to the foreigner. It is a widespread belief, which I believe exists in all industries to-day, that we are on the verge of better times. That is one reason why new trawlers are being built, because it is believed by those who know that they are on the verge of a time when there will be a greater demand for fish. There is nothing inconsistent between the restrictions of this Bill and the possibilities of an expanding market.
If I happened to be in the position of hon. Members opposite, the only criticism which I should be inclined to make would be this, I should say: "Why do you assume that it is necessary to give the Sea-fish Commission three years? Why do you give a preliminary period of three years, in which you impose foreign restriction without home reorganisation Why do you postpone reorganisation for three years?" The answer to those questions is simple. When we were dealing with agricultural marketing we were dealing with a. subject on which for the last 30 or 40 years we had been experimenting with co-operation and organisation, and on which there was an immense amount of practical evidence in existence. Moreover, it has been very closely studied by all parties in this country. There was almost universal agreement that the value of agricultural marketing was a proved fact. You cannot say that of marketing in regard to the fishing industry. In no country has there been any development of a marketing scheme in the fishing industry at all comparable to the elaborate agricultural marketing scheme of Denmark. In fact, we do not know whether there is the same room
and opportunity for marketing in the fishing industry as there is in the case of agriculture. Therefore, it was only right that the Sea Fish Commission should have ample opportunity for considering the subject. It is not merely a Commission to report, it has to inquire and then frame a definite marketing scheme. That is a sound reason why a period of time has been given to the Commission to consider the subject.
I agree with the hon. Member when he said that they have toiled all night and caught nothing, that the Government had proved hard-hearted and adamant, but how much easier would the path of my hon. Friend have been in this matter if he had only remembered one further scriptural injunction and cast his net on the right side of the ship. If he had done that I am sure he would have found the Government ready to accept suggestions, and that he too would have obtained such a load of profitable Amendments as we hope British boats in the case of fish will bring hack to our ports. The House will shortly take leave of the second of these Bills, the object of which is to save the great industries of agriculture and fishing. The Bill leaves the House with the hope and the belief that it will effect safety and improvement in the fishing industry. There is no task more necessary for the legislature of a great nation than that it should make prosperous the industries upon which our power to subsist independent of foreign nations depends, and upon which the health, the vigour, bodily, mental and, I believe, spiritual welfare of the whole race of these islands depends.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not propose to quote Scripture or even to tell the House that I know a great deal of this subject. The issue simply is this, that this Bill affects the lives of the poor people living in the slums of our great cities, and their argument, to which there has been no reply, was put with a great deal of force by the hon. Member for the Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) on the Second Reading. In that Debate the Minister of Agriculture said that there is an over-supply of fish. The ordinary common people cannot understand it, because they find that there is an under-supply of fish. The Under-
Secretary of State has just said that there will be an increased purchasing power and that, therefore, these poor people will get more fish. They cannot see that argument at all. The ordinary poor man is getting less and less fish each year. Years ago it used to play a tremendous part in the lives of ordinary common people, and in Glasgow you found the ordinary fish and chip shop flourishing in every street. There were numbers of them, but to-day they are (inclining, not because the people are wanting less fish, not because of tinned food. There never was a keener desire on the part of poor people to eat fish than there is to-day, but they cannot buy it. You cannot buy fish and chips on 15s. 3d. when a man is working on the means test. To the great mass of the people there is no over-supply of fish but a tremendous under-supply.
I have listened to the Debates and heard the strong case put for a larger mesh and for stopping fishing at certain times of the year, but I have never heard any reply to the point as to why you are restricting the supplies of fish when large numbers of the community are already restricted by reason of poverty. The Bill further restricts supplies, and therefore the price will continue to rise. You make the community which is able to buy fish more select than ever and enable those who control the industry to reap larger profits, at the expense of the many. The large mass of our poor people in the great towns are denied fish by reason of their poverty. Take the constituency of Kelvingrove represented by the Secretary of State for Scotland. I remember the election when almost all the Tories were defeated. My wife asked me the results, and I told her that the Member for Bridgeton was in. She was well pleased. Then she said: "What about Kelvin-grove?" I told her, "Elliot is in," and she said, "I am glad there is one Socialist left in Glasgow." But the other night it was pitiful to see small boys in Kelvin-grove standing in the streets envying those who were able to buy fish. They wanted fish, they needed fish but they were denied it, and yet the Bill proposes to make fish scarcer than ever.
I cannot see any answer to that contention. It was not given on the Second Reading to the hon. Member for the Don Valley. This Bill will be used to restrict further the supplies of this most useful
commodity. If fish were over-abundantly supplied, there might be a need for restriction and for giving the men who catch the fish more leisure, but until you can prove that the great mass of the working people have an over-supply of fish for their needs, neither this House nor the Government have a right to restrict supplies. This policy of price-raising and limitation of supplies, coming at the same time as the cutting down of the incomes of the great mass of the people, is a shocking policy. While it

Division No. 267.]
AYES.
[9.58 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Gower, Sir Robert
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas
Munro, Patrick


Albery, Irving James
Graves, Marjorie
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd)
Greene, William P. C.
North, Edward T.


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Oman, Sir Charles William C.


Aske, Sir Robert William
Grigg, Sir Edward
Penny, Sir George


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Grimston, R. V.
Perkins, Waiter R. D.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.
Petherick, M.


Bateman, A. L.
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Pike, Cecil F.


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Potter, John


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Hanbury, Cecil
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Hanley, Dennis A.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Boulton, W. W.
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsden, Sir Eugene


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Ratcliffe, Arthur


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Hornby, Frank
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C.(Berks., Newb'y)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Rugglea-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Runge, Norah Cecil


Burnett, John George
Howitt, Dr. Allred B.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Hume, Sir George Hopwood
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Cassels, James Dale
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Salmon, Sir Isidore


Christie, James Archibald
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Salt, Edward W.


Clarke, Frank
Jennings, Roland
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Clarry, Reginald George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Johnston, J. W. (Clackmannan)
Selley, Harry R.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Ker, J. Campbell
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)


Conant, R. J. E.
Knight, Holford
Simmonds, Oliver Edwin


Cook, Thomas A.
Law, Sir Alfred
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Copeland, Ida
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Craven-Ellis, William
Leckie, J. A.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Crooke, J. Smedley
Lees-Jones, John
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n Kinc'dlne, C.)


Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Soper, Richard


Crone, R. H.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Crossley, A. C.
Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Southby, Commander Archibald R. J.


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Dickle, John P.
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Spent, William Patrick


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Stanley Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)


Dower. Captain A. V. G.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Stewart, J. H. (Fife, E.)


Duncan, James A. L.(Kensington, N.)
McKie, John Hamilton
Strauss, Edward A.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Ellis., Sir R. Geoffrey
Macguisten, Frederick Alexander
Summeraby, Charles H.


Eillidon, Captain George Sampson
Magnay, Thomas
Sutcliffe, Harold


Emmott, Charles E. G. C.
Maitland, Adam
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Emrys-Evans. P. V.
Manningham-Bulfer, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Todd, Capt. A. J. K. (B'wick-on-T.)


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Marsden, Commander Arthur
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Martin, Thomas B
Turton, Robert Hugh


Fraser, Captain Ian
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Fuller, Captain A. G.
Milne, Charles
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ganzonl, Sir John
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thames C. R. (Ayr)
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Gault, Lieut.-Col, A. Hamilton
Horsing, Adrian C.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Goldie, Noel B.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Moss, Captain H. J.
Weymouth, Viscount

may give the Government greater power for the time being with those from whom they gain their support, to the mass of the people it means greater misery. It is an insidious attack on the wage earner. From that angle the Bill should be rejected, and I associate myself wholeheartedly with the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 194; Noes, 48.

Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Wills, Wilfrid D.



Whyte, Jardine Bell
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Mr. Womersley and Major Davies.


Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)





NOES.


Banfield, John William
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Maxton, James


Batey, Joseph
Grundy, Thomas W.
Milner, Major James


Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)
Hail, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Parkinson, John Allen


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Hamilton, Sir R.W. (Orkney & Z'tl'nd)
Rathbone, Eleanor


Buchanan, George
Harris, Sir Percy
Rea, Walter Russell


Cape, Thomas
Hicks, Ernest George
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Holdsworth, Herbert
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)


Curry, A. C.
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daggar, George
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Thorne, William James


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Slivertown)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, David
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Dribble, William
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
McEntee, Valentine L.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Mallalleu, Edward Lancelot
Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

10.7 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."
It may be convenient if I make a short general statement on these Amendments from another place. They appear to constitute a rather formidable array, but very few of them are more than drafting Amendments, and of those I shall give the House full notice when we reach them. There is one important Amendment which is of great interest to lawyers and particularly to constitutional lawyers which relates to the power of the subject to challenge certain Orders in the courts. I will not venture to deal with that myself since my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General is here to do so. I will only say that we have been able to meet the criticisms expressed in this House and in another place and although we shall have to go through the motion of asking this House to disagree with certain of the Lords Amendments, we shall, I think, be able to meet the substance of the complaint.
Another point which arises is the constitution of the boards set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. There is a difference of opinion between the Government and certain of their supporters, or perhaps I ought to say critics, in another place, and I believe that there
is an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, put down by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) and also a manuscript Amendment which has been handed in by my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams). Consequently, it is clear that when we come to that Amendment the House will require some further explanation of the point involved. Apart from those which I have mentioned I think we should be able to dispose of the Amendments expeditiously.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

Orders of the Day — TITLE.

Lords Amendment: In the Title, line 4, leave out from the word "provide" to the word "to," in line 7, and insert:
for the better organisation and development of the agricultural industry and of industries connected therewith by regulating the importation and sale of agricultural products and the production of secondary agricultural products.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment merely brings the Title more into line with the wording of Clause 1.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 1.—(Regulation of importation of agriculture products.)

Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 17, leave out from the word "if," to the end of line 8 on page 2, and insert:
it appears to the Board, after such consultation as aforesaid—

(a) that there have been, or are being, taken all such steps as are practicable and necessary for the efficient reorganisation, by means of agricultural marketing schemes or schemes under this Act, of those branches of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom in whose interests the order is made; and
(b) that without an order under this section the effective organisation and development of the said branches of the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom under such schemes as aforesaid cannot be brought about or cannot be maintained."

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It is important that the Government should not be in the position of having to exercise their discretion against the making of an Order although the statutory conditions are fulfilled and consequently we desire that all the statutory conditions should be worded so as to correspond as closely as possible with the necessary conditions for the making of an Order. These words more closely correspond with those conditions than the original words.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH: I wish to ask for an assurance that this Amendment does not weaken the power of the industry in regard to the formulating of marketing schemes?

Major ELLIOT: I think I can give the hon. Member that assurance.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman also give a definite assurance that there is no weakening of the right of the Government to put on restrictions while a scheme is in preparation? I am not sure that the wording now proposed is not weaker in that respect than the original wording.

Major ELLIOT: I think I can give my hon. and gallant Friend that assurance. That is not our intention, and I am advised that these words do not in any way weaken the position in that respect.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 2, line 21, leave out "or."

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is purely drafting in character.

Question put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 2.—(Regulation of sales of home produced agricultural products.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 12, leave out from the beginning to the word "that" in line 13.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This Amendment and those which follow it were moved to meet a criticism raised in another place that there was a risk under this Clause of prejudicing the home producer. We propose that before any restrictions are imposed, the Ministers and the Secretaries should not only consult the Board of Trade and the Market Supply Committee but also the boards under this scheme.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 4, line 5, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 4.—(Submission and approval of development schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 13, after the word "approved" insert:
then subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the making of Orders.

10.13 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Thomas Inskip): I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
It will be remembered that the question of the form of this Clause was raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel) and some observations were made by the Solicitor-General pointing out that the objection taken by the right hon. Gentleman to this Clause, on the strength of some recommendations by the Donoughmore Committee, were not well founded. I shall endeavour to inform the House of the nature of the objection without too much reference to technicalities. The main objection was to Sub-section (3) of this Clause and to another Clause later in the Bill, which provided that when the Minister had made an Order, in pur-
suance of this Clause, approving of a scheme the Order should be conclusive evidence that the requirements of the Act had been complied with. The provision is one which in various forms has appeared in various Acts of Parliament. The Donoughmore Committee recommended that there should always be an opportunity of challenging orders of this sort, at any rate for a period of three months but preferably for a, period of six months. The objection taken to the provision in other Acts of Parliament was largely directed to cases in which there was no provision for an affirmative Resolution of the two Houses of Parliament. What the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General said to the House was that in this case no Order could be made by the Minister until there had been an affirmative Resolution of the Houses of Parliament, and that that to a great extent got rid of the mischief to which the Donoughmore Committee had directed its attention.
However, the matter has been raised in another place, and it was there decided—and the Government have no desire at all to go back upon what was there decided—that in addition to the full opportunity given by the Bill before it had left this House to challenge the scheme up till the time that the Order was made by the Minister, there should be a further period of 28 days after an Order was made by the Minister when anybody who thought the Order or the scheme was ultra vires could challenge the Order. Inasmuch as from the time that the scheme is published to the time that it is laid on the Tables of the Houses of Parliament for the purpose of obtaining an affirmative Resolution in its favour there must be at least a period of 14 weeks, and probably more, it will be seen that if we add 28 days further opportunity after the Order by the Minister has been made, there will be at least a period of four and a-half months, and in most cases probably very nearly a period of five months or even six months, during the whole of which time it will be open, by one method or another, to any person to challenge in the courts the validity of the Order. When it is realised that, together with the opportunity of challenging the scheme in Parliament, there will be this opportunity of challenging it in the courts, I think it will be seen that the recom-
mendations of the Donoughmore Committee have in substance been met.
The only reason for moving that this House should disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment is this: Some Amendments were inserted in another place inadvertently before Amendments which were moved by Lord Reading were reached. The Amendments inserted on the Motion of the Noble Lord did not fit in with the Amendments which had been moved before his Amendments were reached, and, therefore, the first of those Amendments, with which I am now dealing, must obviously disappear as being inconsistent with the Amendments that were subsequently introduced. I am also going to ask the House to disagree with the two Amendments introduced on the Motion of the noble Lord, for the reason that it is necessary to alter the form of the matter, though not the substance. The Amendments as made in another place provided that Sub-section (3) would read as> follows:
If the making of an Order in pursuance of this Section is not contested within 28 days from the date of the making of the Order, it shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this Act have been complied with.
But there was nothing to say what would happen if the Order was contested within 28 days, and for the purpose of providing for both events, I shall propose in due course to the House to leave out the whole of Sub-section (3) and the last few words of Sub-section (9), and to insert later in the Bill a new Clause which will effect precisely the same purpose as that decided upon in another place, but in words which will effect the object of all concerned.

10.20 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: We agree in disagreeing with the Lords in this Amendment, but, as I understand that we are discussing the whole question which is raised by these Amendments and also by the new Clause to be proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I want to say a. word or two about the whole question. We understood that when this Bill was before the House at an earlier date the Minister of Agriculture had screwed up his courage to take a very sensible course, which he justified fully before the House and in which we supported him. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Certainly, we supported him
and we supported him against the Liberals, but now apparently he has become so frightened of the Liberals that he has given way. We are very sorry that he has been frightened. We did not think he was a Minister who was likely to be frightened, even by the great array below the Gangway. He is now apparently going to accept the position which is put upon this House by another place, the position which, according to the proposal of the Attorney-General, is, I think, without precedent in this country.
It is proposed now to give the court the power by means of an interim order to hold up an Order which has been duly made in accordance with the provisions of the law as laid down in this House. That power has never before been given to the courts. It is not a question of the courts having power to say that an Order made is wrong and is therefore of no force or affect, but it is a power to the courts to make an interim order directing that the Order in question shall not come into operation before the final determination of the proceedings. That is to say, that this House may affirm that Order by a positive resolution and may desire it to come into force at once and be of full effect, and the court can say, "No." Although the House of Commons passes that Order specifically, the courts can say that it shall not come into force. That is a thing which, I venture to say, has never been done in this country before, and it is the first challenge to the sovereignty of the Houses of Parliament that has ever been proposed.
I should be surprised if the Attorney-General is able to produce any precedent for that type of procedure, because, as I read this, it is wholly immaterial whether this House desires or expressly says the Order is to come into force. It may be a, matter of great urgency; it may be that the Minister of Agriculture may decide that in a particular branch of agriculture it is extremely urgent that something of this sort should be done, yet, if some disgruntled individual goes to the courts, he has not to make out a case against it; he has to do nothing except enter a complaint against it, and the moment he enters his complaint, justified or unjustified, the courts are entitled to make an interim order saying that that which this House desires to come into force and which the House has passed
shall not come into force until the proceedings are terminated. That may be, with the right to go to the Court of Appeal, a matter of some months. In the end it may turn out that there was no justification whatever for any opposition to the Order, that it was quite well in order, and should have come into force.
The ordinary procedure is that if an Order is challenged in the courts it remains in force until such time as the courts decide that it is invalid. If the courts decide it is invalid, there is, I think nearly always, if not always, a provision by which anything done under the Order up to date when it is held to be invalid stands, nor can it be upset nor form the basis of any breach of contract made in accordance with it or action for damages for anything done by the Government in accordance with it. Apart from whether it is wise that the courts should be able to interfere with Orders of this sort, as to which we have already expressed our view, the question whether an interim order of the court should be allowed to upset an Order debated and specifically confirmed in this House raises an extremely serious point and one which ought not to be passed over lightly. It is something which, I suggest, we have not done before and which it is extremely unwise to do now, whatever view the House may take as regards the advisability of the courts being able to declare Orders invalid, which is another point altogether. The point I am on, and I beg the House to take the most serious notice of it, is the introduction of this Subsection (2) in the proposed new Clause.

10.25 p.m.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Far be it from me to rush on to the technical ground where my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General and the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) tread so fearlessly and with such confidence, but a number of us on these benches, and I think in other parts of the House, have for some time been alarmed at the growing powers of Departments to legislate on their own. I quite agree that many of us have been convinced from time to time by the admirable and cogent arguments which are always produced when a Measure is under discussion that it is advisable to give such power, but we have grown in-
creasingly uncomfortable about it, and eventually a Committee was set up, known as the Donoughmore Committee, on which there served ladies and gentlemen representing every section of political thought in this country, including some eminent Members of the Labour party, for which the lion. and learned Member has just spoken. To my uninstructed mind the conclusions of that Committee seem sound, and I cannot believe that future Governments will depart from them. Whether we have found the right form of words is a matter which I daresay is open to discussion and to which I would not commit myself but we have found a form of words which safeguards what I feel at the present moment is the main principle, that of refusing to give these legislative powers to the heads of Government Departments without control by the Courts of Law.
I feel grateful, first of all, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Darwen (Sir H. Samuel), who came down to the House vigilantly during the dinner hour and first raised this question. I feel grateful, also, to my noble Friend Lord Reading, who, in another place, successfully raised this issue, and induced the Government to make these concessions; and I feel grateful to the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol, who is always vigilantly in his place on the Opposition Front Bench, and addresses the House with such candour, and who warned us on the last occasion when this matter was being discussed that this was a development which was absolutely necessary if we were to carry through the fundamental changes which the Minister of Agriculture de sired to convert this country into a condition of State capitalism, and further said that this was an excellent precedent which would be followed widely in the future. The hon. and learned Gentleman rendered a great service, perhaps even more to the country than to his own party. He exhibited a red light, the fear of which rather than fear of the party to which I belong may in part—I think it would be ungracious to say entirely—have influenced the decision of the Government. We feel grateful also to the learned Attorney-General and to the Minister of Agriculture, who have so gracefully conceded what it was the manifest intention of Parliament to de-
mand. I am glad that this Amendment has been proposed, and we shall certainly support it.

10.30 p.m.

Sir REGINALD BANKS: I have enjoyed the speech which has just been made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair), and the quotation which he has given from the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) in this House on this question. It may be known to some of us that those remarks are more than amplified in the publication which bears his name. He warns us all that in future the House of Commons itself will be subjected to a drastic species of tyranny, and that we shall not waste time with Debates any more. All that has got to be done away with, and then the entire change in the economic, social and moral order in this country is to be effected by ministerial order. As the hon. and learned Gentleman's experience gives him some apprehension that the law courts under his own régime, as under the régime of previous tyrants, may well become the guardian of English liberties, he warns us frankly in his pamphlet that their right to interfere with ministerial orders will be instantly curtailed. This discussion has given to my hon. and gallant Fiend the Member for Caithness and to myself an opportunity to direct the attention of all hon. Members of the House to that pamphlet. Let them read it, and say grace for what they are about to receive.
I should like the learned Attorney-General to make one little difficulty clear to me, and that is how this Amendment which he has introduced will alter, if at all, the course which an apprehensive subject sometimes has to take, and did-take, in the case in which my hon. and learned Friend and myself were both engaged, when he thinks the Minister will make an Order which will be ultra vires, and when he fears that it will be too late to wait until an Order has been made, because of these Clauses which say, once the Minister has made the Order, that that is conclusive evidence that everything is intra vires. The subject has to go to the High Court to ask for a prohibition in a somewhat hypothetical way. He has to say to the Court: "I do not quite know what the Minister is going to do, but we must stop him now, because
it will be too late when he does it." This procedure, as the learned Attorney-General knows, has been resorted to more than once, and the Court has prohibited the Minister from making an Order. I do not know whether the Amendment will alter this, or will make the procedure more convenient to the subject.

10.34 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I rise to answer the question which the hon. and learned Member for Swindon (Sir R. Banks) has asked. The procedure as to prohibition, to use the technical phrase, will be open to anybody who wishes to prevent the Minister from making the apprehended Order, and that power will exist right up to the making of the Order. The power which this gives to the aggrieved person is to move for what is called a writ of certiorari, after the Order which it will be said that the Minister has made without proper jurisdiction. There is a full right given to an aggrieved person. If I may add to the answer this observation, I would say that I am not at all reluctant to offer to this House this new Clause, with the additional proposal to which the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has referred, and I am more gratified than I expected to be to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman resents its introduction.

Sir S. CRIPPS: Would the Attorney-General answer the question whether there is any precedent in the history of this country for giving the courts such power?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: There are a great many precedents in this history of this country for affording the courts power to see that subjects have their proper opportunity of getting their rights litigated—in other words, to prevent the mere lapse of time from depriving a subject of his right to seek protection of the courts. This particular Clause was contained in the Housing Act of 1930, but in that case there was no provision for an affirmative resolution of Parliament to precede the Minister's Order. In this case there is such a provision. The only effect of the Clause is to enable the courts to prolong the time of 28 days, in order to secure a. proper opportunity of having the point raised
argued in the courts. I am astonished that anyone should object to a proposal of that sort, when it is remembered that the Law Officers of the Crown, and the Attorney-General in particular, are always in a position to obtain a hearing from the court. on any day for which application may be made to the High Court of Justice. There is no substance at all in the suggestion that this is an attempt to arm the courts with powers greater than Parliament possesses; it is merely procedure to enable the courts to prevent a subject from being cheated of his rights by the mere lapse of time.

10.37 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: May I ask the Attorney-General a question which I think will be of interest to the agricultural Members of the House? During the past few weeks, we have heard from the Minister of Agriculture time and again that all the powers and opportunities of individual Members to attack any schemes that may be produced are over and over again given during the preparation of the scheme, long before it reaches the House of Commons, and that even then Members will have an opportunity of attacking any scheme. We have also been told time and again that, unless the scheme for milk is prepared and carried through during the present summer, it will mean utter disaster for the dairy farmers. Presumably such a scheme, upon which dairy farmers depend for their future economic existence, can be prepared, after all the inquiries and all the attacks from all sections of the producing community and the users of the milk, and finally can be brought here, having passed through all those inquiries, and receive an affirmative Resolution of this House and another affirmative resolution of the other House; and, after that, any person in the country—either an ordinary consumer of liquid milk or a user of milk—can delay the operation of the scheme. Will the Attorney-General tell us whether there is a similar precedent in existence, and, if so, will he tell the House exactly what is the cause of the extraordinary revolution which the Minister of Agriculture has made since the Bill left this House and went to another place? He has swallowed almost every sentence that he uttered, relating to inquiries and so forth, on the Second Reading, in Committee, and on Report,
by accepting the Amendment which is now before us. I would ask this very simple question: If any scheme, either for milk, beef, bacon, or any other product, has passed through the gamut of inquiry, how long does the Attorney-General estimate that any opponent of such a scheme could hold up the scheme from becoming operative by the simple process of applying to the Courts

Captain PETER MACDONALD: May I ask the late Attorney-General a question? As he is such a stickler for precedent, will he tell the House what precedent he considered before he issued a pamphlet proposing to set up a virtual dictatorship and to do away with this House altogether?

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member opposite asked me a question. This will have nothing to do with holding up the milk scheme in any way. It applies only to development schemes. The milk scheme is not a development scheme and the fears which the hon. Member expressed, and his taunts about me swallowing my own words, do not apply.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Surely there will be a dairy scheme, which will be a development scheme? One obviously involves the other, because, if there is no scheme for the production of cheese and butter, it is doubtful whether the milk scheme will be a success.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Gentleman was speaking of the milk scheme and asked me the simple question whether it will be held up by this. It will not be held up for a single hour.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY: I am not a lawyer either, but I have got up to protest against the virtuous indignation of the Attorney-General at the delinquencies of my hon. and learned Friend, and the impudence of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen talking in this fashion when during this Parliament they have revolutionised the whole taxation system of the country. They have set up outside the House a body of three men who can tax the imports into the country and the only power that the House of Commons has over them is that they have to accept scores of orders holus bolus after Eleven o'clock at night and cannot amend them in any sort of way.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 19, at the beginning, insert "if," disagreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 6, line 20, after the word "section," insert:
is not contested within twenty-eight days from the date of the making of the order, it,

disagreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 6.—(Effect of development schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 9, leave out from the word "Board" to the end of line 12, and insert:
in connection with the regulation of sales of an agricultural product or the regulation of any matter mentioned in paragraph (f) of Section five of the principal Act.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The chief function of the Development Board is to organise the production of secondary products. It may be convenient that the Development Board should also regulate the quantity of the product that is sold. The Amendment enables this to be done, with discretion in the board to retain any or all of its powers in its own hands.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 9, at the end, insert:
and every person who obstructs a person in the exercise of any powers conferred on him by virtue of paragraph (c) of Subsection (4) of this Section shall, for each offence, be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is to remedy an omission which was discovered in another place. No provision has been made in the case of obstruction when an inspection is being made, and it seemed desirable that the provision should be inserted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 10, line 30, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 7.—(Secondary products to which Part II of the Act applies.)

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 31, after the word "approved" insert
subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act relating to the making of orders.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment and the next two Amendments are precisely similar to the three Amendments to which the House a moment ago disagreed.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 10, line 36, disagreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move—in lieu of the Lords Amendments

Division No. 268.]
AYES.
[10.48 p.m.


Banfield, John William
Greenwood., Rt. Hon. Arthur
Mainwaring, William Henry


Batey, Joseph
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Maxton, James


Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Groves, Thomas E.
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Grundy, Thomas W.
Parkinson, John Allen


Cane, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Daagar, George
Kirkwood, David
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, David (Swansea, East)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Edwards, Charles
Lunn, William
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)



George, Megan A. Lloyd (Anglesea)
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Grimston, R. V.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Craven-Ellis, William
Guy, J. C. Morrison


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Crooke, J. Smedley
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.


Albery, Irving James
Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Hanbury, Cecil


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Liverp'l, W.)
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hanley, Dennis A.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'k'nh'd.)
Cross, R. H.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K.
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Harbord, Arthur


Aske, Sir Robert William
Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Harris, Sir Percy


Ashbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick Wolfe
Dower, Captain A. V. G.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Drewe, Cedric
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Llonel
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.


Bateman, A. L.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Eastwood, John Francis
Holdsworth, Herbert


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Hornby, Frank


Bou'ton, W. W.
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Horsbrugh, Florence


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Eillston, Captain George Sampson
Howard, Tom Forrest


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Emmett, Charles E. G. C.
Hewitt, Dr. Alfred B.


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)


Broadbent, Colonel John
Entwistle, Cyril Hillard
Hunter, Dr. Joseph (Dumfries)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C.(Berke., Newb'y)
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)
Janner, Barnett


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Jennings, Roland


Burnett, John George
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Ganzonl, Sir John
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Ker, J. Campbell


Christie, James Archibald
Goldie, Noel B.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Gower, Sir Robert
Law, Sir Alfred


Colfox, Major William Philip
Graves, Marjorie
Leckie, J. A.


Colman, N. C. D.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.


Conant, R. J. E.
Greene, William P. C.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Cook, Thomas A.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Llewellin, Major John J.


Cooper, A. Duff
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Loyal-Fraser, James Alexander


Copeland, Ida
Grigg, Sir Edward
Lyons, Abraham Montagu

in page 6, line 13, page 6, line 19, page 6, line 20, page 10, line 31, page 10, line 35, page 10, line 36—in page 6, line 16, to leave out from the word "force," to the end of line 24, and to insert "at the same time as the order."

The first of these Amendments is to leave out the words after the word "force," in line 16, of page 6, down to the end of Sub-section (2), and to insert "at the same time as the order," so that the last sentence of the Sub-section will then read:
and the scheme shall come into force at the same time as the order.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 35; Noes, 202.

MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Procter, Major Henry Adam
Spens, William Patrick


McConnell, Sir Joseph
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Ramsden, Sir Eugene
Stanley, Hon. O. F. C. (Westmorland)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Ratcliffe, Arthur
Strauss, Edward A.


McKie, John Hamilton
Rea, Walter Russell
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


McLean, Major Sir Alan
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart


Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Summersby, Charles H.


Magnay, Thomas
Rhya, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Sutcliffe, Harold


Maitland, Adam
Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Tate, Mavis Constance


McHallod, Edward Lancelot
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Runge, Norah Cecil
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Marsden, Commander Arthur
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Turton, Robert Hugh


Martin, Thomas B.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Wallace, John (Dunfermline)


Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Salmon, Sir Isidore
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Milne, Charles
Salt, Edward W.
Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)


Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.


Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Moreing, Adrian C.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Wells, Sydney Richard


Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Weymouth, Viscount


Muirhead, Major A. J.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Munro, Patrick
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Simmonds. Oliver Edwin
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


North, Edward T.
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Womereley, Walter James


Penny, Sir George
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Klne'dine, C.)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Petherick, M.
Soper, Richard
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Peto, Geoffrey K.(W'verh'pt'n, Bllst'n)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.



Pike, Cecil F.
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Major Davies and Dr. Morris-Jones.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Further Amendments made in lieu of Lords Amendments disagreed to:

In page 10, line 33, leave out from the word "order" to the end of line 39.

In page 11, after line 10, insert:

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Validity and commence ment of orders under PartII.)

"(1) The validity of an order made in pursuance of this Part of this Act shall not be called in question except in proceedings duly begun during the period of twenty-eight days from the day on which notice of the making of the order is first published in accordance with this Act.

(2) The court before whom any proceedings are duly taken for the purpose of questioning the validity of such an order as aforesaid may, upon application made by any party before the expiration of the said period of twenty-eight days, make an interim order directing that the order in question shall not come into operation before the final determination of the proceedings.

(3) In any such procedings as aforesaid no appeal shall, without the leave of the Court of Appeal or Court of Session, as the case may be, lie from that court to the House of Lords.

(4) Subject to the foregoing provisions of this section, every order made in pursuance of this Part of this Act shall come into operation at the end of the period of twenty-eight days from the day on which notice of the making of the order is first published in accordance with this Act and, subject as aforesaid, the making of the order shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of
this Act have been complied with, and that the order and the scheme (if any) approved thereby have been duly made and are within the powers conferred by this Act."—[The Attorney-General.]

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 9.—(Determination of quantities of products which may be sold.)

Lords Amendment: In page 11, leave out lines 22 and 23, and insert:
method of determination may be such as to secure that the quantity (if any) which any particular registered producer may sell is determined.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move," That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment to make quite clear the method of determination of the quantities which may be sold.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 26, after the word "produced," insert the words "sold or otherwise dealt with."

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This, also, is a drafting Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 11, line 27, at the end, insert:
(2) A scheme under the principal Act may provide for securing that, for all or any of the purposes of the scheme and of the said Act, the sale of any agricultural
product wholly or partly manufactured or derived from the regulated product shall be deemed to be a sale of the regulated product if the substance of the transaction between the seller and the buyer is that the seller, being in possession of the regulated product, agrees to subject it, or cause it to be subjected, to some process and to sell the resulting product to the buyer; and where, in the case of any such scheme as afore-said, the regulated product is live stock of any kind, then, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of this Sub-section, the scheme may provide for securing that, for all or any of the purposes aforesaid, a person shall be deemed to sell the regulated product if he sells the carcases of any live stock of that kind, being live stock produced by him in the area to which the scheme is applicable.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is an Amendment of a certain amount of substance. Its object is to provide against a case where a producer might adapt a regulated product and therefore defeat the purpose of the Regulation. For instance, a person engaged in the sale of live stock might combine with others to kill the live stock privately, and elude the purposes of the Bill. This paragraph deals with that contingency.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 13, line 3, agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After Clause 10 insert:

Orders of the Day — NEW CLAUSE.—(Pooling and distribution of proceeds of sales of regulated products.)

The principal Act shall have effect as if Section five thereof were extended so as to enable any scheme under that Act to provide—

(a) for empowering the board to receive the whole or any part of any sums payable by purchasers of the regulated product in respect of sales of that product by registered producers; and
(b) for securing that any sums so received are distributed by the board to the sellers in such manner as may be specified in the scheme or prescribed by the board.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is to deal with circumstances which have arisen on the milk scheme, which is now under consideration, and may arise upon other schemes in future, for which there is no
statutory provision, since under the Act a scheme may empower the board to determine the terms of a contract under which a regulated product may be sold by registered producers. One of the terms may be that the purchase price shall be paid by the purchaser to the board. In such a case the board does not buy the regulated product from the registered producer, nor does it sell it to the purchaser. All the board does is to receive from the purchaser the price payable by him under the contract for what he has bought from the registered producer, and thus the board accumulates a fund, for the distribution of which it is necessary to make provision in the scheme.

It may be desired that the scheme shall provide for a registered producer's share in the fund in respect of the regulated products sold by him should be either more or less according to the circumstances of the contract price at which he sold. In the milk scheme it is contemplated that the registered producer sells milk for consumption as liquid milk, the contract price for which is generally higher than the contract price of milk sold for manufacture. In certain circumstances it may be less than the contract price paid to the registered producer who sells milk for manufacture, and the board is then able to level up the price. The Clause enables the board to receive sums payable by the purchaser under contract, and empowers the board to determine the manner in which the money so received shall be distributed by the board among the sellers. It is to enable the procedure recommended by the Committee that this Amendment has been inserted in another place.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB: Can the Minister say whether the board have all the necessary rights?

Major ELLIOT: I understand that they will have all the necessary rights under the new Clause.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment: in page 13, line 34, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 12.—(Constitution of marketing Boards.)

Lords Amendment: In page 13, line 39, at the end, insert:
(2) Notwithstanding anything in Subsection (1) of Section two of the principal Act the board constituted to administer any scheme under that Act approved after the commencement of this Act shall at all times comprise (in addition to the elected representatives of registered producers prescribed by that subsection) two persons nominated for their commercial and financial capacity and experience by the Minister after consultation with the Market Supply Committee.
(3) In the case of any scheme under the principal Act which was approved before the commencement of this Act the Minister, after consultation with the board, may make an order amending the scheme so as to make it conform with the requirements of subsection (2) of this section.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I warned the House that when we came to an Amendment of a substantial nature I would call their attention to it. This Amendment deals with the position of the boards, and it is a matter of substance. The boards will have great responsibilities and clearly we can deal with these responsibilities either by saying that the boards feel the weight of the responsibilities upon them or, alternatively, by saying "Let us give them every kind of guidance and insure that highly responsible persons shall be placed upon them." We took the view that on the whole it was desirable, even at the risk of a certain amount not of inefficiency but of inexperience, that the boards should be interfered with as little as possible. In the other place the view was taken that the matters which these boards will have to handle are so important and the responsibilities in money so gigantic that it is necessary to ensure that at all times persons of great experience should be, from without, secured for the purposes of these boards.
It is to some extent an academic discussion, since no one denies that for the first time there will be two nominees on the board nominated by the Minister and it is, of course, our desire and intention to ensure that these persons will be not merely of the greatest experience in finance and commerce but that they will be sufficiently good "mixers" to ensure that when their term of nomination is over they will be elected on the board by the producers themselves. We are emboldened to hope that that will be so since in the case of the only scheme which
is at present working—the Hops Board—the Minister's nominees were eagerly sought after by the producers themselves when their period of office had come to an end.
But here is a difference of opinion between the two Chambers. I do not wish that we should regard this as in any way either a party matter or indeed as a matter of disagreement between the two Houses, each desirous of insisting on its constitutional rights. There are two views which might quite reasonably be taken here. We hold to our own, and I ask the House to disagree with the Lords in their Amendment. But I do not disguise from the House that I desire to continue conversations with those responsible for this view, and to see whether any modus vivendi can be reached between the two views of the two Chambers, for I desire more than anything else that both Houses of Parliament and all sections of the community should feel that they have had a full share in the framing of this legislation, so that we may all by our attempts ensure that it is a success.
Therefore, while I ask this House to disagree with the Lords, I hope I shall not be accused of running away or of bowing to some small section of opinion if I am able at a later date to say that I have been able to come to an agreement. But for the moment I must hold to my opinion that it is desirable to interfere as little as possible with the boards. The boards in the past have shown a sense of responsibility which I believe they will continue to show in future. Therefore the Amendment inserted in another place, that there should be at all times persons even with the high qualifications which are there set out, namely, that they should be chosen simply for their financial and commercial capacity and that they should be continued as members of the board even after the probationary year is run out—I suggest at the moment that those who desire that provision inserted did not fully make out their case, and therefore we hold to our position.

11.8 p.m.

Viscount WOLMER: I was very glad to hear my right hon. Friend say that he hoped to continue conversations in this matter, because it is a matter of very great importance that has been raised in
another place, almost as important as the first matter which we debated just now. I am sure that the majority in another place will not accept the Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman is to move and which is in fact identical in words with the Amendment which was defeated in the House of Lords. But I quite agree with him that this question ought not to be incapable of composition. What the House of Lords are insisting upon, and I think quite rightly, is that there should be a guarantee to the nation that on every one of these great marketing boards which, as the Minister has pointed out, are concerns of the magnitude of Imperial Chemical Industries or the London Midland and Scottish Railway and other great business concerns of the country, there shall be the wide variety of experience which concerns of such magnitude require.
Speaking as one who has had experience of the National Farmers' Union's attitude in this matter, I am convinced that not only the National Farmers' Union but the farmers of the country as a whole recognise that while these great boards must have upon them a preponderating number of farmers—many of whom are not only first-class agriculturists but also first-class business men—there is also required a type of experience which can only be got, to put it bluntly, in the City of London. That is financial experience, experience of commerce on a big scale, and experience of the sort of thing which the British public will stand. We must remember that these boards are great statutory corporations exercising a monopoly conferred on them by Act of Parliament and they may at any moment run the risk of taking a false step which would put public opinion against them. Therefore it is very important that upon these boards there should be represented that experience which I have described. That is provided for in the 1931 Act by the nomination of two members by the Minister until the first annual general meeting of the board. As the Minister has said, in the case of the Hops Board the producers were only too glad to reelect the Minister's nominees. What the House of Lords ask for is a statutory guarantee that that shall always recur. They say that the matter is too important to be left to chance, and I agree.
At the same time, I cannot believe that the farmers would willingly accept the
Bill as it stands. It would mean that there would be upon each board two members, who would be there, not with the free accord and free will of the producers, but by the authority of the Minister. It is not reasonable to ask the farmers to agree to that. We must have this element of experience, but it must be provided by people who are satisfactory not only to the Minister but to the producers. Surely it is possible to arrive at a compromise on those lines. I should like to see the matter dealt with by providing that the board itself should be required to co-opt these outside gentlemen and that somebody, the Minister or the Market Supplies Committee, should be satisfied that the people co-opted are of the required stamp; not because anybody thinks that the producers are unwilling to co-opt such people, but because the matter is of such importance that Parliament is justified in asking that there should be a statutory guarantee. There is another aspect of the question, indicated in Amendments to the Lords Amendment which I put down, but which I did not move, because I did not want to occupy the time of the House when the point could be raised otherwise. I am convinced that experience is showing us that it would be an important advantage, if the Minister in the first instance could nominate not two but three additional members of the board, and if, after a preliminary period, those three members were subject to election by the producers, or co-option in the manner I have tried to indicate.
My reason for attaching importance to the figure 3 instead of the figure 2 is this: When you are dealing with a board like the Milk Board or the Pig Board, these tremendously big boards, you will have to get men of the very first calibre in the City of London for your special nominees. These men do not always stay in England. They quite frequently have to go to America, or to South America, or other parts of the world on the great enterprises with which they are connected, and it may quite well be that they are forced to be away from this country for two or three months. In that case we are left with only one such gentleman on the board, and he may very well have influenza or be incapacitated by some accident, in which case there may be several vital board meetings when the board is
deprived of this particular assistance. Therefore, I think it is wise, now that the importance of this matter has been brought to our notice by the other House, to take the opportunity of seeing that the Minister, in the first instance, shall appoint three outsiders on to the board, but that after the preliminary period is over, of course, it shall be left to the farmers to say whether or not they desire those three particular gentlemen to be re-elected.
There is another point. You are casting a very heavy responsibility on two men, and, if one of them is away, on one man, in placing them on a board in these circumstances, and it would be a great advantage to themselves to be increased in number. And it is not only the outside problems of the board where I think these members will play a most useful part. In the inside problems of the board it will be a very great advantage to have a panel of directors who are completely impartial as regards the divergent interests within the industry. When the farmers face Parliament they come as a united body, but when they are tackling these problems among themselves there necessarily arises a great deal of divergence of interest as between one county and another county or one class of producer and another class of producer; and if I may be pardoned for alluding once more to hops, we have found it of the greatest advantage to have on the board three men not connected with the hop industry in any way personally, but there simply as an impartial panel. A large number of questions have been referred to them by their colleagues on the board, simply because they know they will look at them without any county or sectional interest at the back of their minds. Therefore, I press upon my right hon. and gallant Friend, when he is continuing these conversations during the next day or two, to consider whether this question of increasing these nominees in the manner that I have suggested is not worthy of consideration.
I cannot refrain from drawing the attention of the House to the fact that in the pig scheme and in the milk scheme we have the names of the board put forward. Those names are those of splendid men, every one of them, most able men, not only leading farmers, but real good business men who are essential to the work-
ing of the board, but there is no room in either of those schemes for the future election of special members beyond the two members that the Minister is going to nominate, and I do not think it is wise to confine the personnel of your board to these great national statutory corporations, which is what they will be, to confine them so much to persons whose principal experience and reputation are in agricultural matters. It would be wise and prudent to introduce a large element of perfectly impartial outside business men and men of affairs, whose counsel would be of real value to the board, and who would in future years be re-elected every year by the producers themselves.

11.21 p.m.

Sir EDWARD GRIGG: I should like strongly to support both the pleas put forward by the Noble Lord the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) for an Amendment which will make the appointment of the impartial members statutory in these schemes; and also for an Amendment to increase their number from two to three. As a newly returned Member, I regret that I am unable to agree with the view taken in this House. I agree with the view taken in another place, because that view corresponds with the view which was arrived at after long consideration by the Commission of which I was chairman. We devoted months to this matter, and we were convinced that this was necessary in the interests of the producer, the trade, and the public. By those recommendations I still stand. I should like to explain to the House how grave we considered the responsibility which was laid upon us in this matter. We felt that a provision of this kind was owing to the trade and to title manufacturers. They had an enormous capital already launched in their business. They had a business of very great complexity, and they had a. great responsibility to the public in conducting it. Under these schemes the producers quite properly are given powers to compete with private enterprise in every way and to compete with special powers and resources due to the fact that they are given the monopoly of private sales. The commission were convinced and I remain convinced, that while it may be proper—and I think it is proper—to give the producers these powers, they should be accompanied by measures making certain that
they are wisely used under good advice. That is very desirable in the interests of the producers themselves and everybody else.
We also felt that a provision of this kind is necessary and owing to the public. Milk is different from all the other commodities which may be dealt with under these Marketing Acts in the fact that it enjoys a natural monopoly. If the supplies of fresh milk are curtailed in any way fresh milk cannot be brought in at short notice from abroad. In addition to the natural monopoly, you are going to give the producers under this scheme a monopoly of the right of primary sale, an absolute monopoly. In fact, that right involves power not only to fix the wholesale price, but if they chose, ultimately the retail prices and the conditions or which all these sales are made. That is an enormous power, and affects not only the distributing industry, but every home in the country. It is proper and in the interest of the industry that this power should be given, but it should only be given under safeguards. Those safeguards are additions to these boards of men of impartiality and ability who will see that these powers are properly used. I do not wish to argue the matter of numbers. I will only say that the commission went very closely into the question and it was only after grave consideration that they decided on recommending three. Therefore I hope the right hon. Gentleman, when he comes to discuss these matters, will find it possible to adhere as closely as he can to the recommendations of the commission, which were arrived at after months of study.

Major ELLIOT: I think my hon. Friend is getting a little confused. He did make a recommendation about the elected special members—they would be elected by the producers; but what he is speaking about now is what is popularly known as the "superstructure." The superstructure has nothing to do with this, and the argument to which he directed attention would not bear upon the point.

Sir E. GRIGG:: I am very glad to have that explanation from the right hon. Gentleman, because I understood him to be moving this in place of the superstructure which the Commission had in mind.

Major ELLIOT: Let there be no misapprehension. This has nothing at all to do with the superstructure, but is merely a modification of the producers' board. The question is whether the producers' board should contain a certain proportion of nominees or co-opted members as well as elected members. My hon. Friend will, I am sure, agree that in his report there was no suggestion made that the producers' board should contain anything except elected members, although he was desirous that certain of these elected members should be what are called special members.

Sir E. GRIGG: Am I to understand that if this Amendment is made, the right hon. Gentleman is still bound to the creation of the superstructure, and that this is not intended as a substitute

Major ELLIOT: As I have said to my hon. Friend, the superstructure is not a legislative matter at the present moment, and consequently this issue has nothing to do with the superstructure. I am not proposing this as a substitute for the superstructure or anything connected with the superstructure, but really as a point concerned with the boards themselves, the boards being the superstructure, and apart altogether from the superstructure, in relation to which it may be necessary at some other date and in some other fashion to take some action.

Sir E. GRIGG: As long as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will not come forward later and say that this removes the necessity of establishing the superstructure I am satisfied.

Major ELLIOT: I shall not.

11.28 p.m.

Brigadier-General CLIFTON BROWN: It is necessary to consider very carefully the composition of this board. The very fact that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has just mentioned that this has nothing to do with the other matter, makes it more than ever important that the people on these boards should be men with marketing and business acumen. In the Amendment which the House is asked to pass, in rejecting the Lords Amendment, there is no mention at all of men nominated for commercial and financial capacity, and that is a point which all of us interested in the pig or milk schemes must really insist on.
Let my right hon. Friend put himself in the position of a producer. Up to the present he has been able to make contracts with a salesman. Now he has to make contracts with the board. If he is not satisfied with his salesman he can change him, or perhaps he can get out of the contract, but now he is to be absolutely bound down to the board. The board have absolute control over him, body, soul and everything else. It is far more important for the producer now to know that he has a good salesman than ever it was before, and it is vital that the composition of this board should have the confidence of producers. They must be people, as was put in in the other place, of commercial and financial ability.
I happened to be among those who gave evidence before the Commissioner, and that was our one plea and our most important plea. Other associations gave the same plea. We shall not be able to learn, unless the Minister likes, what is the Commissioner's opinion of our plea, because the Commissioner keeps it private and goes on bargaining with the producers without informing anybody what the result is. I cannot help thinking of what I saw in that commission. There were all sorts of interests represented, including the co-operative societies. The Commissioner will give some advice to the Minister that he will be unable to arrange with the producers for the forming of a scheme. If the Minister wants to create confidence for these schemes he must have a board of business men who understand marketing. The Pig Board and the Milk Board have far too many members—17 instead of about seven or eight. The best farmers are men who have not the time to act on these boards, because they have to make money out of their farms, and they are doing it. They want the men on these boards to be practical men. The farmer is necessarily not very good at marketing. I must ask the Minister to implement to the full his pledge to the House.

11.33 p.m.

Mr. DIXON: It is with great diffidence that I find myself in opposition to the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) on a matter of this description. I am bound to say that
from the discussions that I have had with farmers—I have discussed it with many, particularly Northern Ireland and Scottish farmers—I find that the real fear of the farmers in this matter is that the board will be a bureaucratic one and will be overloaded with experts. I quite agree that experts are very well in their place, but there are people, particularly among the farmers, who have not nearly so high an opinion of the experts in London as has the Noble Lord. They have found in the great companies where these experts have been brought in at immense salaries, that instead of being advantageous they have been, at times, disadvantageous. I disagree with what has been said about the farmers and I would ask the House to remember that since the Ark, farmers have been getting on better than people in any other business of which I know. It is all very well to make fun of the farmer and to say that his hair is full of hayseed, but his brains are not full of hayseed.
I hope the Minister of Agriculture will show in this matter, as he has shown in many others, his great Scottish caution. Before coming to a decision in this matter, he should consult with the real working farmers. I am satisfied that if these boards are not worked by the actual producers, they will he a complete failure, and no expert will save them from being a failure.

11.34 p.m.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE: I should not have intervened but for the speech that we have just heard. I have, in a humble way, been a farmer myself, and although I feel perfectly confident to farm 1,000 to 1,200 acres, when it comes to handling production running into millions it is important that we farmers should have, amongst our representatives, a minority of people of substantial business and financial experience. That is all that is asked for. Personally, I do not mind by whom the nomination is made. I attach no importance to the nomination of these three experts by the Minister; I should be quite satisfied if they were nominated by the producers—the promoters of the scheme themselves—so long as it was in consultation with and to the satisfaction of the Market Supply Committee; but we must ensure that there is business experience as well
as small-scale producing knowledge and experience on these boards.

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, in lieu of Lords Amendment last disagreed to, in page 13, line 34, to leave out from the word "sub-section," to the end of line 39, and to insert instead thereof the words:
provide—

(a) for the board by whom the scheme is to be administered being composed, wholly or in part, of persons chosen by a body or bodies elected by registered producers in such manner as may be prescribed by the scheme;
(b) for not more than two persons nominated by the Minister being included among the members of the board either permanently or for such periods and in such circumstances as may be specified in the scheme or determined by the board; so, however, that nothing in any scheme shall be taken to oblige the Minister to nominate members of the board unless he thinks fit to do so."

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

11.36 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to the Bill, in line 6, after the word "persons," to insert the words:
one being a representative of the consumers and the other a representative of the workers in the industry.
I am half inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Belfast (Mr. Dixon). The conditions of the State being as they are, if the experts are wholly responsible for this set of circumstances, the fewer experts the farmers have to guide their destinies the better will it be for the farmers. As a result of the Minister's Amendment, which is a half-way house towards the original Amendment moved and carried in the House of Lords, special representatives will be added by the decision of the Minister, and we think that at all events the consumer ought to be represented, and also the workers in the industry—
not necessarily by a man drawn from the centre of the arable field, but by someone representative of the workers within the industry.
In no way have the workers, or even the consumers, any representation whatever on these marketing boards. I think you might very well look round the consumers, who constitute a very formidable body, and secure persons with the business and financial knowledge that would enable them to be really useful units in any marketing scheme; and so with the workers, I think you might very well draw upon those who could be regarded as representative, and secure assistance and advice and guidance on these boards equivalent to any that might be drawn from Penguin Island. It does not seem to me that the finance expert is the best sort of person to guide agriculture into the channels of prosperity. If the Minister insists upon this Amendment in lieu of the Lords Amendment, he takes power to appoint two persons to every marketing board, either permanently or temporarily, in accordance with circumstances which he himself may prescribe. We want to see that these additional members are representative of the consumers and of the 500,000 or more workers in the industry.

11.40 p.m.

Major ELLIOT: I am sure we must all desire to compliment the hon. Gentleman on having seized the Parliamentary opportunity of raising again a point which was not only thrashed out to a very considerable extent in the 13 days of Committee discussion, but also in the long Debates on the 1931 Act, when he sat on this side of the House and supported the then Minister in refusing such an Amendment. Of course, this raises the whole question of the representation of interests upon the Board. We have had the argument out many times, and it has always been decided against making those boards the arena where the contending interests could fight out their differences. The same arguments that led Dr. Addison to resist the Amendment must lead me to resist it now. A producers' board is one thing and the reconciliation of producers, consumers and
workers' interests is quite another. I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it necessary to press the Amendment.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: The right hon. Gentleman will remember that throughout the whole of the discussions we sought to secure additional names beyond producers. We can anticipate the possibility of producers appointing landowners, commercial men, financial experts and so forth, but by no stretch of the imagination can we hope that they will appoint workers or representatives of the consumers. The right hon. Gentleman is now taking special power to appoint special persons over and above those permitted under the original Act, and we think we are entitled to such representation.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I cannot remember what was my attitude on the 1931 Bill, but I cannot see why it. is that a workman is not a producer and why he is not given the right to be elected as a producer. He has no right to nominate or to vote, which is the essential thing. The workman has an interest in the matter himself, and he has financial capacity. The moment you suggest working men, the Minister says that you will turn it into a fight between warring interests. His argument is that working men are not capable of being included the upper classes are big.

Major ELLIOT: I will take the other half of my hon. 'Friend's Amendment, and say that consumers are not capable of acting. The hon. Member must not bring in the class argument here. After all, every word he said must be applied to consumers. If he thinks that I am making an attack on the consumers, really, there are 40,000,000 people in this country who are consumers, and no class argument can lie against the consumers.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am dealing with workmen at the moment. What is said in the Amendment is that one workman who is a producer should be appointed. He is as much a producer as the farmer.
The Minister makes one reply, and says that if you put more people on the board conflicting interests would arise.

Major ELLIOT: We have had very long Debates on this subject, and, as the hon. Member truly says, he does not remember the attitude he took up at that time. I do not think that he took a very great share in our Debates. I am not dealing with the class argument at all, but with the question of the representation of interests. When I was besought by my hon. Friends from behind to put on representatives of landowners, I resisted them. I am now asked to put on a representative of the consumers, and I resist it. I am asked to put on a representative of workers, and I resist it. I resist it just as keenly as the suggestion that there should be a representative of the land-owing interests. We have had this argument at very great length during many Debates, and I assure my hon. Friend that it is not a question of the representation of any kind of interests, but of financial interests. It is the representation of interests which we have resisted in the past that I am resisting at this moment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: With all respect, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has not met us. He has said that he rejected the landowners, but everyone knows, and the landowners know, that the landowner can be on the board because of the fact that he is a farmer.

Major ELLIOT: So can the worker be on the board if he is a farmer. It is no:use the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) and the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) shaking their heads. They must know that the small man who works with his hands is a. worker. In the Milk Scheme, for instance, they are in many ways the predominant number of people. The milk workers, the men who get up in the morning and go down and milk the cows and do not employ any labour at all—these men are the workers. These men are not only eligible, but they will be represented on the Board. Even taking the position of the proletariat—the non-Kulak—there are a great number of workers in the land, and a great number will be eligible to be elected on such organisations.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That does not meet the point. We ask that the worker should be co-opted by the Minister. I contend that it is possible for the interests of the landowners to be represented on the board through being producers, but it is not possible for workers to be represented. It is possible for people running one man businesses to be on it, but it is not possible for a workman employed by another man to get representation. The Minister has not met the argument. He has only said that it will bring in conflicting interests. Already, by his previous answer to those who suggest that financial interests should be represented, he has agreed to special interests. He said he was not closing the door to further discussion in another place as to whether men of financial standing should go on the board. He was not closing the door to them.

Division No. 269.]
AYES.
[11.53 p.m.


Banfiend, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)
Parkinson, John Allen


Cape, Thomas
Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cripps, Sir Stafford
Jenkins, Sir William
Tinker, John Joseph


Daggar, George
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Davies, David L. (Pontypridd)
Lawson, John James
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lunn, William



Edwards, Charles
McEntee, Valentine L.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Mainwaring, William Henry
Mr. John and Mr. Gordon


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Maxton, James
Macdonald.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Drewe, Cedric
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel
Janner, Barnett


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Duncan, James A.L. (Kensington, N.)
Jennings, Roland


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigle M.
Eastwood, John Francis
Jesson, Major Thomas E.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (Brk'nh'd.)
Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)


Aske, Sir Robert William
Ellis, Sir R. Geoffrey
Ker, J. Campbell


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Kerr, Hamilton W.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton


Batman, A. L.
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)
Law. Sir Alfred


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Leckie, J. A.


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Ford, Sir Patrick J.
Lindsay, Noel Ker


Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman
Fremantle, Sir Francis
Llewellin, Major John J.


Boulton, W. W.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lyons, Abraham Montagu


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Goldle, Noel B.
McConnell, Sir Joseph


Broadbent, Colonel John
Graves, Marjorie
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Greases-Lord, Sir Walter
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Greene, William P. C.
McKie, John Hamilton


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks., Newb'y)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
McLean, Major Sir Alan


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.)
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander


Burnett, John George
Grigg, Sir Edward
Magnay, Thomas


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Grimston, R. V.
Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.


Caporn. Arthur Cecil
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Margeeson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Christie, James Archibald
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Martin, Thomas B.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hanbury, Cecil
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John


Colfax, Major William Philip
Hanley, Dennis A.
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd


Colman, N. C. D.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Conant, R. J. E.
Harbord, Arthur
Milne, Charles


Cook, Thomas A.
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Mitchell, Harold P.(Bett'd & Chlsw'k)


Cooper, A. Dull
Hangers, Captain F. F. A.
Molson, A. Hugh Elsdale


Copeland, Ida
Holdsworth, Herbert
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Moreing, Adrian, C.


Craven-Ellis, William
Hornby, Frank
Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)


Crookshank, Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Horsbrugh, Florence
Muirhead, Major A. J.


Cross, R. H.
Howard, Tom Forrest
Munro, Patrick


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)

Major ELLIOT: Not of financial standing, but of experience. The two things are not the same.

Mr. SPEAKER: We are not in Committee. This duologue cannot go on for ever:

Mr. BUCHANAN: It may be true that he has financial capacity. All that the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) has asked is that a, capable workman should be put on and should contribute what he can. His case has not been met except by sheer prejudice against the workman. The workman can give as good service as anybody else. The Amendment should be pressed to a Division against the Government.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 163.

O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Penny, Sir George
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Turton, Robert Hugh


Petherick, M.
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Pike, Cecil F.
Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar)
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Procter, Major Henry Adam
Skelton, Archibald Noel
Waterhouse, Captain Charles


Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)
Wells, Sydney Richard


Ratcliffe, Arthur
Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.)
Weymouth, Viscount


Rea, Walter Russell
Soper, Richard
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.
Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)


Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.


Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Spens, William Patrick
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Rosbotham, Sir Thomas
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Ross Taylor, Waiter (Woodbridge)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland)
Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.
Strauss, Edward A.
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'oaks)


Runge, Norah Cecil
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.



Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Rutherford, John (Edmonton)
Sutcliffe, Harold
Major George Davies and Dr.


Salmon, Sir Isidore
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles
Morris-Jones.


Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Thorp, Linton Theodore

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 13.—(Discharge of functions of Marketing Board by Executive Committees.)

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 13, line 41, leave out "approved after," and insert "not being a scheme approved before," agreed to.

Lords Amendment, in page 14, line 7, leave out from the word "that" to the word "at", in line 10.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is consequential on the Lords Amendment which the House has rejected. We have now finished with the controversial portions of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 14, line 11, leave out "in accordance with that proviso," disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 18, line 22, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CLAUSE 20.—(Payment of certain expenses by boards administering schemes.)

Lords Amendment: In page 19, line 30, at the end insert:
and if the scheme ceases to have effect at or before the expiration of the suspensory period, no payment under this section shall be made at any time by the board.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain Bourne): I must call the attention of the House to the fact that this Amendment raise the question of Privilege.

Major ELLIOT: I beg to move "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
The Clause provides that on a scheme coming into operation the producers shall be liable to repay to the Government the costs of any reorganisation commission which had prepared the scheme. There is a provision in the principal Act which says that when a scheme is revoked so much of the sum as relates to the expenses of the Board and to the winding-up of the scheme shall continue in force. The effect of the Bill is that when a scheme comes to an end, through failing to secure the requisite majority, those unhappy producers who had registered would still be liable for the debts to the Board. The Amendment remedies this defect in the principal Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I will cause a special entry to be made in the Journals of the House.
Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Orders of the Day — RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RESTRICTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL.

Order for Consideration of Lords Amendments read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

12.7 a.m.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Hilton Young): The House will observe that the great bulk of the Amendments, except two or three, are purely drafting Amendments. Of those two or three that may need a word of explanation, only one is of vital disagreement. and it is one of some general interest. The others will
occupy only a very short time. I will call attention to those Amendments which contain any point of substance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

CLAUSE 1.—(Duration and application of of Acts.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 6, leave out "tenancy," and. insert "lease (as defined in this Act)," agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 6, at the end, insert
and if, before the expiration of the notice, either—

(a) the tenant has, under section five of that Act, served on the landlord a notice requiring a new lease of the premises, or
(b) the landlord has, under section two or section four of that Act, served on the tenant notice that he is willing and able to grant to the tenant or obtain the grant to him of a renewal of the tenancy so much of the last foregoing subsection as provides that in the circumstances therein mentioned the tenant of a dwelling-house will, if he retains possession thereof after the expiration of a notice requiring him to give up possession, be deemed to do so upon terms offered by the landlord, shall not apply."

12.9 a.m.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Boyd Merriman): I beg to move, "That a is House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
At an earlier stage we decided to apply to houses to which the Act was no longer to apply the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant Act of 1927. These were the titles of tenants to compensation for improvements and for goodwill. The landlord could counter a claim by offering alternative tenancy. If the offer was not accepted, it was deemed to be refused under that Act. Those provisions might raise, in certain cases, conflict with the provisions which we inserted in Clause 1, and it is to remove that conflict that this Amendment has been inserted.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments to page 8, line 1, agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Exemption from s. 5 of Act of 1920 of certain dwelling houses of low value.)

Lords Amendment: In page 8, line 35, leave out "two shillings and sixpence" and insert. "three shillings."

12.11 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
This is a matter which requires some explanation, as we are increasing by this Amendment the limit of the recoverable rent, in respect of the cottages to which this Clause refers, from 2s. 6d. to 3s. The purpose of the Clause is to enable a landlord in certain circumstances and in respect of purely agricultural cottages, to obtain possession without showing alternative accommodation, where a cottage is needed for an agricultural or estate worker and the House agreed that the Clause should be limited to cottages with a recoverable rent of 2s. 6d. The reason for substituting 3s. as the recoverable rent—which admits a larger number of cottages—is that that is the normal rent for an agricultural cottage, and, in many areas, 3s. is the sum which the Agricultural Wages Board takes as representing the weekly value of an agricultural cottage in calculating a minimum wage. It will, therefore, be more convenient limitation and more in accordance with the classifications already in existence.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: In page 8, after Clause 5, insert:

NEW CLAUSE A.—(Exemption of certain agricultural estate cottages.)

"Where any dwelling-house to which the principal Acts apply and of which the rateable value on the appointed day did not exceed thirteen pounds is required by the landlord for occupation as a residence for some person engaged in his whole-time employment, or in the whole-time employment of some tenant from him or with whom, conditional on housing accommodation being provided, a contract for such employment has been entered into and the person for whose occupation the dwelling-house is required by the landlord is, or is to be, employed on work necessary for the proper working of an agricultural estate, notice in writing may be served upon the tenant by or on behalf of the landlord specifying the date on which the tenant is required to give up possession of the dwelling-house, and thereupon the principal Acts shall cease to apply to that dwelling-house, unless the court upon the application of the tenant made within seven days after the service of such notice is satisfied that the foregoing provisions of this section have not been complied with or are not applicable in respect of the dwelling-house."

12.13 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
As this Amendment deals with the only point of substance which arises on the Lords Amendments to this Bill it calls for rather careful explanation. What we are concerned with here are the circumstances in which a landlord or owner can get possession of a typical agricultural cottage, for an agricultural or estate worker, without showing alternative accommodation. Under the existing law, which is being re-enacted, an owner can get possession and always has been able to get possession, without proving alternative accommodation, if he requires the house for a person in his whole-time employment, and if the former tenant was in his whole-time employment, or, if the labour of the new tenant is necessary for the working of an agricultural holding, on condition that he gets a certificate that the labour is thus necessary, from the county agricultural committee. That was the general law.
When we were dealing with this matter on the passage of the present Bill through the Committee stage, I accepted a new Clause, moved by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), which had the effect of making it easier for the owner of an estate to get possession of a cottage where it was necessary for an estate worker or an agricultural worker. That Clause only applied to cottages with a recoverable rent of not more than 2s. 6d. That figure we have now altered to 3s. Other conditions were that the existing tenant was protected, and that after recovery of the cottage the rent remained controlled. The Clause gives a wide extension of the power—the useful power—of the owner of an estate or farm to get possession of a cottage needed for a worker. To that there has been added in another place a Clause which gives a very much wider extension. This extension, I suggest, is much too big. The Clause added applies to practically all "C" class houses. The original extension rightly applied to agricultural cottages only. The Clause as added applies even to the existing tenant, which is contrary to the provisions of the Bill all through. Further, the consequence of the Clause added is to give the landlord the right not only to
the occupation of the house, but to remove completely all restrictions on rent.
Finally, and this is the most criticisable feature of the Clause added, it places on the tenant the whole onus of showing that the cottage is not necessary to the working of an agricultural holding and gives the landlord power to recover possession without proving any necessity at all. I do not think it is reasonable, in dealing with agricultural tenancies thus to shift the whole onus on to the tenant. This Clause offends against the cardinal principles of the Bill. There was, however, a strong argument raised on the question of practical necessity, that the existing law should cover not only persons whose work is necessary for the working of the holding, but other persons on the estate. As I believe that case to have been made out, I propose to deal with the practical need in another manner, which I trust will prove satisfactory to those who moved the insertion of this Clause in the Lords. I propose to make an addition to the schedule which will have the effect of making it a statutory provision, that the provision in the Schedule under which possession can be got with a certificate from the county agricultural committee, shall apply not only to the worker on the agricultural holding, but also to the estate worker, artisan, carpenter, and so on. The actual words that I shall move will be in the first Schedule, in page 13, line 36, at the end, to insert the words:
or as an estate workman on the maintenance and repair of buildings, plant or equipment on agricultural holdings comprised in the estate".

Question, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment", put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, to page 13, line 17, agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Application to Scotland.)

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 13, line 17, at the end, to insert,
(e) in the application of section six of this Act, for the words 'thirteen pounds' the words twenty-six pounds five shillings' shall be substituted",

disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment, in page 13, line 20, to leave out "appointed", agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Possession or ejectment without proof of alternative accommodation.)

Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 25, leave out "either."

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, "That, this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
I move this in consequence of the decision already come to by the House and also to lead up to the alternative suggestion to be incorporated in the Schedule.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 29, leave out from the word "employment" to the end of line 36, disagreed to.

Sir H. YOUNG: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the words so restored to the Bill, in line 36, at the end, to insert the words,
or as an estate workman on the maintenance and repair of buildings, plant, or equipment of agricultural holdings comprised in the estate.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is it competent for the Minister to move an Amendment which is not an Amendment to the Lords Amendment As this Amendment is moved to the Schedule, and not as an Amendment to the Lords Amendments, is it in order at this stage to move it?

Sir F. FREMANTLE: It is already covered by a Lords Amendment.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I am asking Mr. Speaker.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is quite in Order, because the right hon. Gentleman has moved to disagree with Amendments and consequential Amendments which the Lords have inserted. I understand it is in consequence of those Amendments that he is now moving this Amendment in lieu thereof.

Sir H. YOUNG: That is so. The Lords Amendment was to leave out paragraph (g ii). My Amendment is to re-insert the paragraph with certain words added. It is therefore an Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

12.25 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The right hon. Gentleman is proposing an Amendment to the Schedule. I cannot see its relationship to the Amendment put down in
another place, and it does not seem to me to be in Order here.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will recollect that in the Lords Amendments on the last Bill we did leave out certain Clauses, and the Minister then in charge moved an Amendment of his own in lieu of the ones left out. This is exactly the same process.

Mr. BUCHANAN: That is what I challenge. It is not the same. This is a new principle. What the Minister is now moving is to put in certain classes of people, estate workers, etc., and that is not raised by the Lords Amendment. The Minister is raising an entirely new point not covered by any of the Lords Amendments. Nobody can show me a single Amendment which raises this point. I cannot see the connection of the point he is now raising with anything the Lords have done.

12.27 a.m.

Sir H. YOUNG: The hon. Member is quite wrong. It is no doubt due to the fact that he has not the Amendments before him. We are dealing with the Lords Amendment on page 18, line 29, to leave cut from "employment" to the end of line 36. If he glances at the consequence of that he will see that the Lords Amendment leaves out the whole of sub-paragraph 2 of paragraph. (g). I moved to disagree with the Lords Amendment, and to replace that subparagraph with the addition of certain words. My Amendment therefore strictly stands in the form of an Amendment to the Lords Amendment.

12.29 a.m.

Mr. MAXTON: Apart from the question of procedure about which I am still in very grave doubt, there arises the whole question of the House being asked to discuss now an Amendment to the Lords Amendment on an issue which was never before us when the Bill was debated in this House, and which is before us only on a very hurried repetition of it by the Minister. We are unable to see the thing in cold print, as it is not on the Paper. It is not treating the business seriously at all. The Minister has been very candid. He told us that the last Amendment opened too wide a field, and he is doing something which he tells us limits what the Lords are proposing but which is wider than what this House agreed to
when the Bill left us. Yet we have to make up our minds about this at half-past twelve in the morning without the actual thing before us. Personally, I am not going to do it. It may be right or it may be wrong; I cannot say without having looked at the antecedent changes and this consequential one. I am going to vote against the proposal. I thing it is preposterous at this hour of the morning that a Government, which has not been unduly impeded in their work, should come to us in this way and ask us in five minutes to approve this. It is a long time since this Bill went to the Lords and we finished with it. Why could not the Lords have had all this done before and the Minister have had his negotiations with them before, because presumably what he is asking this House to insert to-day is something that the Lords themselves should insert It is not right or proper or treating the House decently, and I for one dissent very strongly from it and shall vote against this proposal.

12.32 a.m.

Mr. GREENWOOD: I have two objections to this Amendment. The first the objection put by my hon. Friend who has just spoken. This is a matter of some considerable substance, and I think it is due to the House that it should have been put on the paper and not moved in manuscript form. After all, this is not a matter of urgency like the World Economic Conference. There is still some time to run and it should have been possible for the Government to have come to the House and given us an opportunity to see the actual form of the words which the right hon. Gentleman has moved in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
My second objection is an objection of substance. When this Bill was considered in Committee, on this side of the House we moved to leave out part of paragraph (g) of the First Schedule, because we thought it was unduly favourable to the landlord and would be likely to have unfortunate consequences to tenants. Now the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is not to limit the number of people who are going to come under its operation but actually to extend them. Because it will enlarge the number of people whose housing accom-
modation is put in peril, and because it will affect and enlarge the powers of the landlords, I am afraid those of us on this side of the House must vote against it. We shall do so on two grounds first, that we think the House should have had a proper opportunity of seeing this Amendment in print, and, secondly, we object to it on principle.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his Amendment would include woodmen?

Sir H. YOUNG: If I may reply to the question of the last speaker first, my advice is that as a matter of fact it is not necessary specifically to include woodmen, because they would be included under the existing Act. I should like to say a word of personal explanation regarding what I feel is the legitimate stress which has been laid on this manuscript Amendment being considered at this time of night. I am not responsible for it being taken at this time of night.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Neither are we.

Sir H. YOUNG: We could not foresee that it would come on at this time of night, but it so happens that it has been inevitable that we have not had time to get the Amendment on the Paper. I did take what steps could be taken to inform the Opposition.

Mr. BUCHANAN: No.

Sir H. YOUNG: I am sorry if it did not reach the hon. Member. I took such steps as could be taken to explain to the Opposition what was the actual proposal that would be made. I realise that that is not a substitute for having it on the Paper, but in the circumstances it could not be put on the Paper. This is, however, by no means an unusual procedure. On the contrary, it is a common occurrence when we are dealing with Lords Amendments that manuscript Amendments should be proposed by the Government. I have done my best to explain matters to the House, and in the circumstances I trust the House will be able to come to a decision on the matter.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to say that on this matter the Government have not made out a case for putting this Amendment down in manuscript. Frankly, we did not know this was coming on as a manuscript Amendment nor have we had
the same courteous treatment as other interests have had. The Government should have known that they would have reached this Bill at this time, because we have only just disposed of the previous Bill. [Interruption.] The hon. Member who is interrupting has many capacities. but he is not Deputy-Speaker yet. Let him do it with manners and not with his hands in his pockets. I was saying that if we had known that this Bill was coming on we would have opposed many Amendments on the Agricultural Marketing Bill and by that means would have used our constitutional powers to delay this Measure. Had we known it we would not have allowed this Measure to have come on at this time of night. When we made inquiries we were assured that no alteration would be made in the Bill at all. I inquired and was told that there were no alterations of

Division No. 270.]
AYES.
[12.40 a.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Greaves-Lord. Sir Walter
Moreing, Adrian C.


Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)
Greene, William P. C.
Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.
Grigg, Sir Edward
Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)


Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craig le M.
Grimston, R. V.
O'Donovan, Dr. William James


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Guy, J. C. Morrison
Petherick, M.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.
Pike, Cecil F.


Bateman, A. L.
Hanley, Dennis A.
Procter, Major Henry Adam


Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)
Harbord, Arthur
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)


Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley
Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n)
Rea, Walter Russell


Boulton, W. W.
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)


Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.
Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Reid, William Allan (Derby)


Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Hornby, Frank
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.


Broadbent, Colonel John
Howard, Tom Forrest
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A.


Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Runge, Norah Cecil


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tside)


Burnett, John George
Jesson, Major Thomas E.
Rutherford, John (Edmonton)


Campbell, Sir Edward Taswell (Brmly)
Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart


Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Ker, J. Campbell
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.


Christie, James Archibald
Kerr, Hamilton W.
Skelton, Archibald Noel


Cochrane, Commander Han. A. D.
Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)


Colfox, Major William Philip
Leckie, J. A.
Sotheron-Estcourt, Captain T. E.


Colman, N. C. D.
Lindsay, Noel Ker
Spencer, Captain Richard A.


Conant, R. J. E.
Llewellin, Major John J.
Spens, William Patrick


Cook, Thomas A.
Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Flyde)


Cooper, A. Duff
MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.


Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.
McConnell, Sir Joseph
Sutcliffe, Harold


Craven-Ellis, William
MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles


Crookehank. Col. C. de Windt (Bootle)
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Thorp, Linton Theodore


Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard
McKie, John Hamilton
Touche, Gordon Cosmo


Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
McLean, Major Sir Alan
Turton, Robert Hugh


Dixon, Rt. Hon. Herbert
Macquisten, Frederick Alexander
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon


Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)
Manningham-Buller. Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Eastwood, John Francis
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Wells, Sydney Richard


Emrys-Evans. P. V.
Martin, Thomas B.
Weymouth, Viscount


Entwistle, Cyril Fullard
Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Whiteside, Borras Noel H.


Fleming, Edward Lascelles
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)


Ford. Sir Patrick J
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Wills, Wilfrid D.


Fremantle, Sir Francis
Milne, Charles
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noake)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mitchell, Harold P. (Betf'd & Chlsw'k)



Goldle, Noel B.
Holton, A. Hugh Elsdale
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Graves, Marjorie
Moore, Lt.-Col. Thomas C. R. (Ayr)
Sir George Penny and Dr. Morris-




Jones.




NOES.


Winfield, John William
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur
Milner, Major James


Buchanan, George
Jenkins, Sir William
Smith, Tom (Normanton)


Cape, Thomas
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George
Tinker, John Joseph


Crippn, Sir Stafford
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)
Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)


Daggar, George
McEntee, Valentine L.
Williams, Thomas (York, Don Valley)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mainwaring, William Henry



Edwards, Charles
Maxton, James
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. John and Mr. Duncan Graham.

substance to be made at all, and on that we allowed the other Bill to go through. Now we have this Amendment which is one of substance. The Minister says it has been done in the past, but Governments have never put down Amendments of this substance in this form before. I say the procedure is shocking. It is bringing within the ambit of the Bill a large number of men with their wives and families and affecting them in a most reactionary fashion. If it had been a group of rich people who were affected, the great mass of hon. Members in this House would have never have stood such a procedure. It is throwing contempt on every decent procedure of this House.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 123; Noes, 19.

Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.

Ordered, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments to the Bill."

Committee nominated of Mr. T. Williams, Mr. C. Edwards, Mr. Brockle-bank, Sir Alan McLean and Sir H. Young.

Three to be the quorum.—[Sir H. Young.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reason for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[Sir H. Young.]

Orders of the Day — NAVY, ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXPENDITURE, 1931.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

I. Whereas it appears by the Navy

SCHEDULE.


No of Vote.
Navy Services, 1931, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditures.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Wages, etc., of Officers. Seamen, Boys, and Royal Marines, and Civilians employed on Fleet Services.
—
1,775
19
9
254,998
10
8
—


2
Victualling and Clothing
—
42,152
18
4
297,622
6
7
—


3
Medical Establishments and Services.
—
—
17,023
13
1
4,237
7
3


4
Fleet Air Arm
—
—
—
—


5
Educational Services
—
—
10,630
8
0
2,003
6
11


6
Scientific Services
—
—
23,889
9
6
7,1130
10


7
Royal Naval Reserves
4,216
8
3
90
15
9
—
—


8
Shipbuilding, Repairs, Maintenance, etc.:















Sec. 1. Personnel
—
—
95,598
6
10
60
10
0



Sec. 2. Matériel
—
456,056
11
5
622,872
15
4
—



Sec. 3. Contract Work
232,935
13
2
28,615
13
3
—
—


9
Naval Armaments
—
—
88,775
11
10
18,450
6
3


10
Works, Buildings, and Repairs.
20,218
15
9
90,851
9
5
—
—


11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
57,870
0
6
—
—
35,326
3
4


12
Admiralty Office
—
—
25,846
4
4
1,087
11
3


13
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Officers.
—
647
17
2
4,835
11
1
—


14
Non-Effective Services (Naval and Marine), Men.
—
2,391
4
11
26,957
19
6
—


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation Allowances, and Gratuities.
8,143
11
0
462
12
4
—
—


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
651
16
5
—
—
—




324,036
5
1
623,045
2
4
1,469,050
16
9
68,278
5
10




Total Deficits £
947,081
7
5
Total Surpluses £
1,537,329
2
7




Net Surplus £590 247 15 2

Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932, that the aggregate expenditure on Navy Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services, and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Navy Services over the net. Expenditure is £590,247 15s. 2d., viz.:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
1,537,329
2
7


Total Deficits
947,081
7
5


Net Surplus
£590,247
15
2

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Navy Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Navy Services.

Resolved,
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Captain. Wallace.]

II. Whereas it appears by the Army Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932, that the aggregate Expenditure on Army Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of the Exchequer Grants for Army Services over the net Expenditure is £1,484,504 ls 3d., viz.:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
1,917,976
14
4


Total Deficits
…
433,472
13
1


Net Surplus
…
£1,484,504
1
3

SCHEDULE.


No of Vote.
Army Services, 1931, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditures.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Army
—
179,148
0
0
348,101
14
0
—




2
Territorial Army and Reserve Forces.
—
—
129,867
5
5
4,353
9
2


3
Medical Services
—
—
61,121
12
10
1,005
16
10


4
Educational Establishments
—
—
16,800
1
1
2,021
12
1


5
Quartering and Movements
—
—
70,299
19
5
38,580
9
6


6
Supplies, Road Transport, and Remounts.
—
43,334
14
10
476,059
14
4
—




7
Clothing
—
—
49,475
13
1
4,097
4
9


8
General Stores
—
20,972
13
7
121,085
8
6
—




9
Warlike Stores
—
98,131
13
10
74,159
16
2
—




10
Works, Buildings, and Lands
—
52,865
7
2
169,394
14
7
—




11
Miscellaneous Effective Services.
36,124
18
9
—
—
22,866
17
0


12
War Office
—
—
14,740
14
6
1,677
14
10


13
Half-Pay, Retired Pay, and other Non-effective Charges for Officers.
—
—
172,356
17
11
4,835
15
4


14
Pensions and other Non-effective Charges for Warrant Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, Men, and others.
—
—
28,446
2
4
98,744
0
10


15
Civil Superannuation, Compensation, and Gratuities.
—
—
7,806
10
10
78
9
0


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
3,395
4
11
—
—
—




39,520
3
8
393,952
9
5
1,739,715
5
0
178,261
9
4




Total Deficits £433,472 13 1
Total Surpluses £1,917,976 14 4




Net Surplus … £ 1,484,504 1 3

III. Whereas it appears by the Air Appropriation Account for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1932, that the aggregate Expenditure on Air Services has not exceeded the aggregate sums appropriated for those Services and that, as shown in the Schedule hereto appended, the net surplus of that Exchequer Grants for Air Services
And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Army Services as is necessary to make good the said total deficits on other Grants for Army Services.

Resolved,
That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Mr. Duff Cooper.] over the net Expenditure is £231,052 9s. 6d., viz.:

£
s.
d.


Total Surpluses
…
532,746
4
7


Total Deficits
…
301,693
15
1


Net Surplus
…
£231,052
9
6

And whereas the Lords Commissioners of His Majesty's Treasury have temporarily authorised the application of so much of the said total surpluses on certain Grants for Air Services as is necessary to make good the

SCHEDULE.


No of Vote.
Air Services, 1931, Votes.
Deficits.
Surpluses.


Excesses of actual over estimated gross Expenditure.
Deficiencies of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.
Surpluses of estimated over actual gross Expenditures.
Surpluses of actual as compared with estimated Receipts.




£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1
Pay, etc., of the Air Force
—
17,626
18
0
87,886
0
6
—


2
Quartering Stores (except Technical), Supplies, and Transport.
—
13,978
19
4
209,433
9
9
—


3
Technical and Warlike Stores (including Experimental and Research Services).
53,889
16
8
120,445
15
9
—
—


4
Works. Buildings, and Lands
—
17,499
11
7
82,671
4
1
—


5
Medical Services
—
4,248
15
4
12,095
15
4
—


6
Educational Services
—
—
7,631
11
9
1.772
16
10


7
Auxiliary and Reserve Forces
—
—
7,827
8
9
161
17
4


8
Civil Aviation
—
72,040
19
0
76,273
17
3
—


9
Meteorological Services
—
813
12
7
11,575
14
6
—



Miscellaneous Effective Services.
—
—
2,812
13
4
1,516
7
9


10
Air Ministry
—
—
16,824
16
0
854
11
2


11
Half-Pay, Pensions, and other Non-effective Services.
—
—
13,159
1
11
348
18
4


—
Balances irrecoverable and Claims abandoned.
1,149
6
10
—
—
—




55,039
3
6
246,654
11
7
528,091
13
2
4,654
11
5




Total Deficits £301,693 15 1
Total Surpluses £532,746 4 7




Net Surplus … £231,052 9 6

Resolutions to be reported upon Tuesday next.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Thursday evening, Mr.

said total deficits on other Grants for Air Services.

Resolved,

"That the application of such sums be sanctioned."—[Sir Philip Sassoon.]

SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Five Minutes before One o'Clock.